Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BARCLAYS BANK BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Anglo-Soviet Relations

Mr. Andrew Bowden: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of Anglo-Soviet relations.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): We shall continue to seek to broaden understanding between East and West and to improve Anglo-Soviet relations. The recent visit of Mr. Kornienko, the Soviet First Deputy Foreign Minister, to London was a useful step in this process. We shall hope to build on it when my right hon. and learned Friend visits Moscow in July.

Mr. Bowden: Will my hon. Friend ask the Foreign Secretary to tell the Russian leaders, when he sees them in July, of the whole of the British people's passionate wish for peace? Will he also ask the Foreign Secretary to tell the Russian leaders not to be misled by the campaigns for one-sided nuclear disarmament, which do not represent the majority view of the British people?

Mr. Rifkind: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. He will remember that the late President Andropov said that those who believed in unilateral disarmament were naive. This Government will not subject themselves to that type of accusation.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister share the concern about abuses of the Soviet postal system which mean that mail posted here for recorded delivery is not delivered and is often not returned to senders here?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree that such interference is a sign of the Soviet leaders' inability to allow their people to be exposed to ideas which are not approved. The whole spirit of the Helsinki agreement should facilitate such exchanges of information.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware of the unhelpful editorial in Pravda recently about the decision by Her Majesty's Government, rightly, to break off diplomatic relations with Libya? What representations have we made to the Soviet Union, and what response has been received?

Mr. Rifkind: Her Majesty's ambassador raised that matter with Mr. Kornienko, the Soviet First Deputy Foreign Minister, yesterday. The reply was to the effect that what appeared in Pravda did not necessarily reflect the Soviet authorities' views and that the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union had not yet come to a view on the matter.

Mr. Healey: Does the Minister agree that, at a time when almost all negotiations on disarmament are deadlocked, it is very important that the arms race is not allowed to enter a new field? Will the Minister therefore strongly support proposals for the demilitarisation of outer space, which is as much a British interest as an international one?

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman will he aware that the concept of the demilitarisation of outer space is attractive. We are always willing to consider constructive proposals which might lead to that end.

Anglo-Jordanian Relations

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: asked the Secretary of State Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-Jordanian relations.

Mr. Bottomley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of Anglo-Jordanian relations.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Richard Luce): We have excellent relations with Jordan. The successful state visit to Jordan last month demonstrated the close ties of friendship between our two countries. During the visit I had talks with King Hussein, Crown Prince Hassan and the Foreign Minister.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does my hon. Friend agree that the moderate and reasonable attitude of states such as Jordan and Egypt should be reinforced by Britain? Does he further agree that after the Israeli general election we could use their responsible positions as a basis for a new diplomatic initiative?

Mr. Luce: I agree that the stability of countries such as Jordan and Egypt is of great importance to the middle east and to us. If it turns out that King Hussein, supported by other moderate friends in the middle east, comes forward with constructive and sensible proposals which might help to resolve the Arab-Israeli dispute, I am sure that we and the European Community will wish to give them every encouragement.

Mr. Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend accept that the stability and common sense shown by Jordan and its leaders over the years is greatly to be welcomed? Although we may not always see eye to eye on every issue, both this country and Jordan hope that there will be opportunities for progress in the middle east in which both countries can share.

Mr. Luce: I agree with my hon. Friend. The success of the state visit demonstrated not only the long-standing historic ties but the important close political and economic relationship that we have with Jordan.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Does the Minister agree that during her successful visit to Jordan Her Majesty was made aware of a serious impediment to any further Jordanian or other


middle east peace proposals, namely, the continuing settlement policy of the Israeli Government? Unless the British and United States Governments impress upon the Israeli Government the fact that these settlements must end, there can be no further proposals from the Arab side.

Mr. Luce: It is self-evident that there can be no prospect of any start to a dialogue about this dispute unless the neighbouring Arab countries, the Palestinians and the Israelis are prepared to take part. It is important that during the next few months, with elections pending in Israel and elsewhere, the ground is prepared by the parties involved to ascertain whether in the foreseeable future—perhaps in the autumn—it will be possible to forge ahead with discussions about the resolution of their problems.

Mr. Walters: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the American electoral frenzy, it is unlikely that there will be any sensible American initiative on the middle east in the coming year? Does that not make it more urgent that there should be a European initiative especially to prevent the continuing policy of settlements, which is illegal and provocative?

Mr. Luce: I agree with my hon. Friend that the fact that elections are taking place not only in the United States but in Israel hampers the prospect of any immediate move forward. I agree with my hon. Friend also that it is important that there should not be stagnation. On 27 March the European Community meeting of Foreign Ministers issued a statement giving strong support to those parties prepared to put forward constructive proposals based on two fundamental principles — the right of the Palestinians to self-determination and the right of Israel to exist within secure boundaries.

Mr. George Robertson: What is the Minister's reaction to the apparent desire by King Hussein to involve the Soviet Union in an ultimate middle east settlement? As no settlement in the middle east is possible without the assent of both the super powers, is this not a welcome and useful step towards realism?

Mr. Luce: The prerequisite of any progress is that the parties should agree among themselves that there is a basis for discussion. That is the most important first stage. Clearly, the United States and the Soviet Union have an interest in that part of the world, and it goes without saying that they must both play a constructive role in the longer term if there is to be a peaceful resolution of the problem.

NATO (Budget)

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation information budget for 1983–84 is in real terms compared with those of 1978–79, 1973–74 and 1968–69, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Luce: The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation information budget is assessed in calendar years. The sum allocated in Belgian francs was as follows: 1969, 46,940 million; 1974, 58,000 million; 1979, 77,200 million; and 1984, 128,000 million. Over the whole period since 1969 this represents a slight decline in real terms, compared to the Belgian cost of living index. The increase in the budget since 1979, however, has been substantially greater than

the rise in the cost of living index. This increase will help to maintain the work of the NATO information service, which we strongly support.

Mr. Greenway: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the improvement since 1979, but must we not do still better in view of the tremendous effort of Russia and her satellites against NATO's peaceful aims? Would it not be worth sacrificing a cruise missile, a tank or an aircraft or two to obtain the funds with which to improve NATO information services?

Mr. Luce: I know of my hon. Friend's strong interest in this matter in his capacity as chairman of the Atlantic Education Committee. He plays an active, constructive and helpful role on that score. This is the 35th anniversary of the foundation of NATO. It is an important time to remind people, especially the young, of NATO's objective. NATO is a defensive organisation designed to defend the free world against aggression. It is important that adequate sums of money are made available to explain the purposes of NATO to the British community.

Hong Kong

Mr. Moynihan: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of negotiations on the future of Hong Kong.

Mr. Luce: The last round of talks with the Chinese Government was on 11 and 12 April, and the next will be on 27 and 28 April.
My right hon. and learned Friend visited Peking from 15 to 18 April and Hong Kong from 18 to 20 April. In Peking he discussed the future of Bong Kong with the Chinese Foreign Minister and with other Chinese leaders. In Hong Kong he made a statement which described our approach to the negotiations. Copies of the statement have been deposited in the Library of the House.

Mr. Moynihan: In the light of the agreement reached and the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary in Hong Kong on Friday, is there now a good prospect of reaching an agreement to safeguard the continuity of the way of life of all the people in Hong Kong, both up to and beyond 1997?

Mr. Luce: The overwhelming desire of the people of Hong Kong is to ensure the continuity of every facet of their way of life. As a result of the discussions, there is clearly a desire by both the Chinese Government and ourselves to reach an agreement to achieve that.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Minister accept that, while there is broad acceptance that the future of Hong Kong must be sorted out bilaterally, the British Government nevertheless may have a duty to provide a future for the people of Hong Kong, many of whom have fled from the Communist regime? Does the hon. Gentleman further accept that there may be international dimensions to the problem, which should be considered now?

Mr. Luce: The best way in which we can serve the people of Hong Kong is to do our utmost to reach an agreement with the Chinese Government which enables the way of life of the Hong Kong people to continue as it is now. That includes their freedoms, their legal systems and their commercial way of life. That is the best contribution that we can make, and we shall do our best to achieve it.

Sir Peter Blaker: Is not one of the main concerns of many Hong Kong people the fact that if we reach a satisfactory agreement with China it is important to obtain an assurance that it will last for a long time? Is not the important question that of durability? It is important for the maintenance of confidence in Hong Kong and for its prosperity. Did my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary press that point on the Chinese Government?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend knows a great deal about the Hong Kong question. I assure him that my right hon. and learned Friend pressed this matter very strongly. As my hon. Friends knows, the Chinese Government have stated that any agreement reached should last for at least 50 years from 1997. Obviously, it is important to seek an agreement between our two Governments of an international nature that is as binding as possible. However, at the end of the day, the best guarantee is the self-interest of both Governments to achieve something that allows the people of Hong Kong to continue to flourish.

Mr. Hal Miller: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is widespread support for any effort to ensure that the agreement is reduced to writing and is capable of being recognised internationally? Many people in Hong Kong have experience of previous undertakings given in 1949 being ignored. Did not many people leave China for Hong Kong because the constitution was not respected? Have not many more people been born in Hong Kong and brought up to expect those personal freedoms which we have a responsibility to ensure are continued in best measure?

Mr. Luce: One of the values of my right hon. and learned Friend's visit to Peking last week was that he was able to discuss these matters very fully with the Chinese and to explain to them that, while we both want agreement, it is important to understand that the Chinese people living in Hong Kong must feel that their way of life, as they know it and appreciate it, can continue, and that whatever agreement is reached gives as much assurance as possible that that will take place.

Mr. Healey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House have tried to follow the negotiations carried out by the Foreign Secretary during his visit to the Far East? On a matter of this complexity and delicacy, the official Opposition feel that it would be convenient if the Government would agree to a debate on the matter as soon as possible after the Foreign Secretary returns.

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I hope that the House will have an early opportunity to debate this important subject after my right hon. and learned Friend's return.

Lebanon

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future intitiatives he intends taking with European Economic Community partners in connection with seeking a peaceful solution to the situation in the Lebanon.

Mr. Luce: In their statement of 27 March Foreign Ministers of the Ten reaffirmed their hope for progress

towards reconciliation in Lebanon and their support for the early withdrawal of foreign forces from Lebanese territory. The initiative for making progress towards both these objectives lies first with the Lebanese parties, but we shall continue to work with them and others to help restore peace and stability in Lebanon.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister accept that, while both the Soviet Union and the United States have interests in the area, one of the difficulties is that the two power blocs are irresolute in the pursuit of those interests, and that perhaps what is needed there is for a third party to come in, with the agreement of each side in the dispute, to try to reconcile them?

Mr. Luce: It is very important for the internal parties and the immediate external parties concerned to see whether they can resolve the problem themselves. It is disappointing that the Lausanne conference did not succeed, but I think that any ultimate agreement that is reached can succeed only if all the parties concerned in the matter—above all, the internal parties—find a way of reconciling their differences.
On 27 March the European Community issued a strong statement of support for reconciliation and for the withdrawal of external forces, and we shall all work very hard to support that objective.

Mr. Marlow: In their thoughts about the situation in the Lebanon, did the Foreign Ministers accept that there is a difference between the status of the Israeli forces in the Lebanon, who got there through military adventurism and unprovoked invasion, and the Syrian forces, who were invited to be there? The difference in status is very important to the consideration of the issue.

Mr. Luce: It is important for all external forces to withdraw. That is the most important aspect of the whole problem. It is also important for the internal parties to the conflict to resolve their differences. It is, of course, the case that the external parties concerned came in on different bases and at different stages, but the most important thing to concentrate upon is the withdrawal of all foreign forces.

British Diplomats

Mr. Allen McKay: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the security of British diplomats abroad.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ray Whitney): Security arrangements for British officials serving overseas are kept under constant review in the light of the known threat. We take this matter very seriously. The need to do so was illustrated most recently in Athens. The tragic and senseless murder of Mr. Kenneth Whitty will be deplored by the whole House which will. I feel sure, wish to register its deepest sympathy with Mrs. Whitty and her family.

Mr. McKay: I thank the Minister for his reply. Following the closure of the embassy and the withdrawal of the diplomats from Libya—and, I understand, the acceptance by Italy to act as our mediator in that territory—what instructions or advice have been given to the United Kingdom citizens in Libya, and what arrangements are being' made to bring them home if the situation deteriorates?

Mr. Whitney: The House will be aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is to make a statement about the situation in the Libyan People's Bureau, as it called, in London and on the state of affairs in Tripoli. We have issued advice to British residents in Libya.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Is there any truth in newspaper reports today that the Libyan authorities are trying to prevent the movement of diplomats out of Libya? If so, will the Government remind the Libyans that that would be a complete breach of the Vienna convention?

Mr. Whitney: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that that would indeed be a breach of the Vienna convention. I ask the House, however, to await the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, which is to follow Question Time.

Mr. Stanbrook: Does my hon. Friend agree that threats against the personal safety of diplomats are to some extent an occupational hazard and that international relations should not be conducted or determined on the basis of such events? Does he further agree that the proper course is to co-operate with like-minded states in having nothing to do with those states which refuse to accept the normal standards of civilised behaviour in these matters?

Mr. Whitney: I certainly accept that it is essential that we co-operate with all like-minded states to ensure proper adherence to the conventions. The Vienna convention facilitates, and is indeed the prerequisite of, sensible relations between individual nations.

Mr. Healey: I understand that the Home Secretary is to make a general statement on the affair between Her Majesty's Government and Libya, but will the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answer two specific questions of Foreign Office concern? First, is he satisfied that the Italian Government have sufficient personnel in Tripoli to handle the potentially massive responsibilities that will fall on Italy as the protecting power with the addition of some 8,000 British citizens to the 14,000 Italian citizens for whose interests the Italian authorities are already responsible? Secondly, has the hon. Gentleman any reason to doubt that the Libyan authorities will allow existing British personnel and their families to leave Libya by the end of the week?

Mr. Whitney: I believe that it will be for the benefit of the House to await the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who will seek to cover both the Home Office points and the Foreign Office points to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. In general, I can tell the House that we are grateful to the Italian Government for agreeing to act as the protecting power. We are hopeful that the arrangements that we are making for our own people in Libya and the advice that we have given to diplomatic personnel and to other British subjects in Libya will ensure their safety.

Argentina

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in bilateral negotiations with the Argentine Government.

Mr. Whitney: On 6 April the Swiss protecting power delivered our response to the Argentine comments on the

specific ideas that we put forward on 26 January. We are ready for official talks on the normalisation of relations between our two countries. Such talks cannot include discussion of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Anderson: Is the Minister aware that in Paris yesterday Senor Caputo spoke in conciliatory terms about what he called a diplomatic dialogue with Britain and a policy of small steps? Will the Government now state clearly that they are prepared to enter into negotiations in the spirit suggested by Senor Caputo and on a two-tier basis, taking smaller, bilateral matters first and perhaps putting the whole subject of sovereignty on the back burner? Does the Minister agree that if the Government's response is seen to be both negative and tardy we shall risk losing the support of our European partners on this matter?

Mr. Whitney: I do not believe that the Government's initiatives can be described as tardy or lacking in forward movement, as it was our proposals in January which initiated the dialogue that we have sustained so far. As I have said, we now await the response to our reply of 6 April. I repeat, however, that none of the talks that we have proposed can include discussion of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.

Mr. McCrindle: Would there be any advantage in seeking to begin discussions on the possibility of increasing Anglo-Argentine trade, perhaps as a forerunner to the type of discussion to which my hon. Friend refers?

Mr. Whitney: I am happy to confirm that the Government are interested in the normalisation of many aspects of our relations with Argentina, and trade would certainly be foremost among those.

Mr. Dalyell: Is there not ominous evidence that the Argentine military have not gone away, in that the Argentine Government have ordered six submarines? Would it not be in our national interest to help the civilian Government of Mr. Caputo as much as possible? What is the British content—in terms of navigation equipment and other electronics — of the submarines built for Argentina in West Germany under licence to Buenos Aires?

Mr. Whitney: The policy of the Argentine Government on arms purchases is a matter for that Government. It is for us to ensure the security of the Falkland Islands. We very much look forward to a formal declaration by the Argentine Government of the cessation of hostilities and the renunciation of future force. I am not in a position to answer the technical part of the hon. Gentleman's question.

Dr. M.S. Miller: Some of the surface equipment built for Argentina came from this country. That being so, is the the hon. Gentleman happy about the fact that the new submarines are to be built in Germany?

Mr. Whitney: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about the content of the submarines. Our own relationship with Germany has been honoured in terms of the solidarity shown by West Germany, as by our other European allies, in our relations with Argentina.

Mr. Dykes: Is my hon. Friend, through the British interests section, pursuing the case of Daisy Hobson, a British citizen who has been incarcerated in Argentina for eight years, having been tried in a travesty of a case by the military junta? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that


he will pursue this case and try to ensure an early release? There are signs that the new Government will release Daisy Hobson soon. For example, she is now held in an open prison.

Mr. Whitney: We are pursuing that case closely and hope very much that the action that is contemplated will be effective.

Mr. Deakins: Is it the policy of the Government that any bilateral talks with Argentina will cover the Falkland Island and not the Falkland Islands dependencies?

Mr. Whitney: Our interest is in restoring normal relations with Argentina. We are quite clear about our relationship, in terms of sovereignty, to the Falkland Islands and the Falkland Island dependencies.

Commonwealth Countries

Mr. Robert Banks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to improve understanding and communication between the Governments and the peoples of Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Whitney: We play an active part in the full range of Commonwealth activities. We fully support and endorse the programmes of the Commonwealth Secretariat, Commonwealth Foundation and Commonwealth Institute in achieving a greater under-standing amongst members of the Commonwealth.
About two-thirds of our bilateral aid budget is devoted to Commonwealth countries. In addition, we continue as part of our diplomatic efforts—within our financial and manpower limitations—to do all that we can to improve understanding and communication.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he not agree that Her Majesty the Queen makes an outstanding contribution to the sense of cohesion and understanding between members of this remarkable free association? Will he pursue all avenues to improve education, student exchange and mutual aid within the Commonwealth framework?

Mr. Whitney: I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend about the contribution of Her Majesty the Queen to the unique character of the Commonwealth, and to assure him that the Government will continue — within the limitations of the resources available — to encourage student exchange and co-operation.

Mr. Spearing: Has the Minister seen recent press reports about the unsatisfactory nature of public electricity and water supplies in Grenada? In view of the fact that the Select Committee paid attention to those matters in January, and that those items are part of the British aid package to Grenada, will the hon. Gentleman find out whether there is any fault in communications between Her Majesty's Government and the authorities in Grenada?

Mr. Whitney: I shall be happy to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development to that point. I remind the House that we have contributed £1·75 million in special assistance to Grenada. We shall reply to the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on Grenada towards the end of May.

Viscount Cranbourne: No doubt my hon. Friend will have read press reports in the past few days about

increasing offers of investment by the Soviet Union in the expansion of the Indian Navy. Does he feel that the remarkable increase in the power of the Indian Navy that such investment implies will increase understanding between Commonwealth nations — especially those which are members of NATO — in view of the increasing threat to the area represented by the Soviet Union's recent offensive in Afghanistan?

Mr. Whitney: We seem to be going some way from the original question. India co-operates closely with the British Government within the Commonwealth. I assure my hon. Friend that although there might be co-operation between India and the Soviet Union there is substantial co-operation between British industries, including defence industries, and the Republic of India.

Mr. George Robertson: Does the Minister agree that nothing will damage Commonwealth co-operation and development more than the prospective tour of South Africa by the English Rugby Football Union? Is it not time that the Government followed up their hitherto fairly tough words with an even more robust attitude to the tour so that its damaging implications for the Commonwealth games can be avoided?

Mr. Whitney: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the Government have used tough words in regard to the proposed tour by the English Rugby Football Union. I hope that he will also accept that we live in a country in which individuals and societies such as the English Rugby Football Union must make their own decisions in such matters.

South Africa (Trade)

Mr. Pike: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the political implications of United Kingdom trading links with South Africa.

Mr. Rifkind: It is our policy that civil trade should be determined by commercial considerations. This implies neither approval nor disapproval of the policies of the countries concerned.

Mr. Pike: As there has been little progress in making South Africa change its policy of apartheid, which is utterly unacceptable and condemned throughout the world, is it not time that the Government considered taking steps towards a full and effective trade ban with South Africa and attempted a ban on direct and indirect investment there to make South Africa rethink its policy?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has provided no evidence to suggest that an economic ban would have the effect which he obviously desires. He should also take into account the fragile economic circumstances of some countries surrounding South Africa and the devastating effect that an embargo on trade with South Africa would have on countries in the region.

Sir William Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a tremendous amount of hypocrisy in regard to South Africa? Does he agree that many countries and many right hon. and hon. Members apply double standards over South Africa, as there are many countries that have far more repressive societies than South Africa and yet they are never criticised?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the danger of applying double standards. There are many oppressive regimes in various parts of the world but I must add that South Africa is the only country, that applies a policy of segregation based on the colour of its citizens.

Mr. Freud: Will the Minister consider severing trade with South Africa in commodities such as athletes, who are coming to Britain in search of pseudo-national glory and newspaper circulation?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government observe the United Nations mandatory embargo on arms sales. We do not believe it appropriate to restrict other forms of trade or to restrict the movement of individuals who wish to travel to South Africa or from that country to Britain.

Mr. Hoyle: Does the Minister agree that we should not take too much notice of financial interests, as expressed on the Conservative Benches, but that we should run down our trade with South Africa? Does he further agree that that aim is not achieved by building up sporting links with South Africa through allowing the British rugby team to go there?

Mr. Rifkind: Those who have visited South Africa in recent years will have noticed that the economic impossibility of apartheid is becoming increasingly obvious throughout South African society. Today one sees the blacks playing an economic role in South Africa that is significantly different from what would have been found some years ago. It is difficult to believe that a policy of economic embargo, even if it were to be successful, would assist in that progress.

Mr. Couchman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the present moves by certain Labour authorities to victimise a young British citizen in pursuance of their hatred of South Africa is entirely reprehensible?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree that local authorities should take into account their proper responsibilities and not seek to involve themselves in matters for which they are not accountable to their ratepayers.

Mr. Anderson: May we applaud the Minister's willingness to tell his own side the fact of life that no other country in the world discriminates against the majority of its population on the grounds of colour? In view of our longer-term and trading interests in the rest of Africa, will he seek to discourage new investment by British firms in South Africa?

Mr. Rifkind: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that it would be in the interests of the people of South Africa, black or white, for Britain or the international community to impose an economic embargo against South Africa. Nor do I believe that it would be possible in practice to enforce such an embargo even if it were attempted.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Political Integration

Dr. Godman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at what meetings of the Foreign Affairs Council proposals for increased

political integration of the European Community have been discussed; and what has been the attitude of the Government to these proposals.

Mr. Rifkind: There has been no discussion of any proposals for increased political integration at recent meetings of the Foreign Affairs Council.

Dr. Godman: As a score or more of British Conservative MEPs recently voted in favour of the Spinelli proposals for closer political integration of the European states, is it now Government policy to work towards closer political integration of the EEC — in other words, a united states of Europe? If a closer political integration of the EEC takes place in future, which would include Spain, how would that affect the sovereignty of Gibraltar?

Mr. Rifkind: I understand that the vote to which the hon. Gentleman referred was a free vote among Conservative Members of the European Parliament and it is for individual Members of the European Parliament to take responsibility for the way in which they voted on that occasion. It is not the Government's policy to work towards a united states of Europe. We have made it clear that access between Spain and Gibraltar must be identical to that between Spain and other parts of the European Community when Spain joins the EEC.

Mr. Stokes: On the question of political integration in Europe, have we had any support at all from any of our partners in the EEC over the Libyan embassy episode?

Mr. Rifkind: I ask my hon. Friend to await the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. He will be addressing the House shortly on that matter.

Mr. Rogers: How does the Minister reconcile his answer that the Government are not looking towards the political integration of Europe with the statements made by the Prime Minister on her return from various summit meetings at Dublin, Luxembourg, Stuttgart and Athens, which contain specific proposals and ideas for developing political integration in Europe? Is the Minister not now fully acquainted with what the Prime Minister is doing behind his back?

Mr. Rifkind: There are many areas in which we wish to work towards greater European unity. However, the Government have always made it clear that the concept of a federal Europe — which is what I think the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend, the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) was referring to—is not something that commends itself to them.

Mr. Forman: I understand that the prospect of a federal Europe may not be attractive to the Government, but will my hon. Friend tell the House exactly what form of increased political integration the Government do favour?

Mr. Rifkind: There are many areas of political co-operation where greater European unity can be of great value. For example, in many aspects of political co-operation over foreign policy the Community has been able to speak with a single voice. Wherever it is able to do so it carries that much greater authority than any individual Member state of the Community would be able to do on such issues. There may be other areas where closer political co-operation can be of value, not only to Britain, but to the interests of western Europe as a whole.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that at this morning's meeting of the national executive committee of the Labour party we came out conclusively against any further moves towards political integration, especially on the ground that the Common Market has cost the British taxpayer £4,000 million in the last 10 years in contributions alone, it has now gone bankrupt, and it is asking for another £1,600 million? How on earth can he get integration when the whole thing is in a state of collapse?

Mr. Rifkind: When the hon. Gentleman refers to a state of collapse, I am not sure whether he is talking about the Community or the Labour party. Whatever problems the European Community may have in trying to achieve unity, they are nothing compared with the attempts of his own party.

Budget Rebate

Mr. McTaggart: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he is considering for applying the funds which are due to the United Kingdom as its rebate from the European Community.

Mr. Rifkind: The draft regulations put forward by the Commission after discussion with Her Majesty's Government provide for Community contributions to United Kingdom public sector projects, measures and schemes in the field of employment, energy and transport.

Mr. McTaggart: I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he give the House an assurance that he will seek urgently to ensure that all the outstanding funds from the European Community come to the United Kingdom, and that those funds are applied to help the people in my constituency who have witnessed their homes being flooded out twice this year already by the River Cart bursting its banks?

Mr. Rifkind: I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is our objective to ensure an early payment of these funds. The United Kingdom has submitted a list of projects to the Commission, including a number of projects in Scotland in the three sectors to which I referred. I cannot comment at present on whether the suggestion that the hon. Gentleman has made is included in the projects.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend consider applying some of the funds that will be available from the rebate due to this country to help the dairy farmers of this country, who have been placed in the most impossible position by the agriculture package that was agreed in Brussels? Will he give this assurance and recognise that if he does it will be no more than the assurances that have been given to many other industries, such as steel and coal, which have been subjected to restructuring within the European Economic Community?

Mr. Rifkind: The funds to which my hon. Friend refers, and the purposes for which they are to be used, have already been determined. As to the position of dairy farmers, a comprehensive statement was made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We are very conscious of the genuine difficulties that will be faced by dairy farmers in the United Kingdom. However, I think that most thoughtful dairy farmers will appreciate that it was not possible for the Community to

continue in the way that had been experienced over the past few years, particularly with regard to the over-production of milk.

Mr. Foulkes: Before deciding how to spend the money, does the Minister agree that we have to get the rebate? Does he recall that his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has repeatedly assured the House that, if the money is not paid, the Government will safeguard British interests? Since it is now 25 April and the money has not yet been paid, will the Minister tell the House and the public exactly what is being done to safeguard British interests with regard to this rebate? If, as I suspect, nothing is being done, when will he be able to tell the House what is going to be done? Surely the British electorate will not be allowed to go to the polls on 14 June without knowing what decisive action the Government are to take on this important matter'?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the prime objective of Her Majesty's Government is the successful completion of the post-Stuttgart negotiations. With regard to any measures that may be taken to try to facilitate the payment of the funds to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, any action that may be contemplated will take into account the effect that that will have on these negotiations. The success of the negotiations remains our main objective.

Mr. John David Taylor: Are these projects in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the other regions of the United Kingdom being held back until the rebate is released by the Community to the United Kingdom?

Mr. Rifkind: I am not certain of the detailed effects that the delay will have. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman addresses these questions to the relevant Ministers concerned with energy, employment and transport matters. We certainly hope that there will be no delay, but I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman an absolute guarantee to that effect.

Community Finance

Mr. Maxton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new initiatives he is taking within the Community to ensure the resolution of matters relating to the financing of the Community discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council on 27 March.

Mr. Rifkind: We are continuing, in discussions within the Community, to build on the progress made at the March European Council to resolve the remaining differences and to reach a settlement that we can commend to the House.

Mr. Maxton: The Minister has already made it clear that the negotiations will continue. For how long will they continue, and when will Britain get the money that is due to it? If we are not to receive that money, will the Minister now answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) about what action he will take to ensure that the money is paid?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that many of the issues that were on the agenda for the Stuttgart negotiations have already been substantively and satisfactorily concluded. The only significant outstanding issue is that of British budget contributions. The gap


between the United Kingdom and other member states is relatively narrow, but the matters still to be resolved are important. We have made it clear that the matter must be seen as a package. There can be no agreement on or consideration of own resources or other parts of the package until the outstanding issues have been resolved.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: As Britain now has a manufacturing trade deficit of £20 million a day with the Common Market, as our contributions are now more than £2 million a day, and as we are just about to inflict grave damage on British agriculture because of the enormous problems of the continental CAP, have the Government turned their mind entirely against the possibility of once again seeking an EFTA arrangement with the Common Market?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend will be aware that not only have imports from the Community increased during the past 10 years but that our exports to the Community have increased dramatically, which has had a beneficial effect on employment. The Government do not believe that an EFTA-type arrangement is appropriate. We are full members of the Community. We wish to see reforms in the Community and that is what the present negotiations are all about.

Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Government's opposition to an increase in the resources of the Community include opposition to the latest proposal by the Commission for a loan of £280 million from Britain to cover the excess expenditure on agriculture? Do the Government accept that it would be plain daft for Britain to lend fresh money to a body that has yet to pay the rebates due to us? Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will not pre-empt a decision of the House on own resources by agreeing to this loan, which must be repaid out of the increased own resources, before the House has had an opportunity to decide whether it accepts that increase in own resources?

Mr. Rifkind: We have not yet received a formal request from the Commission for a loan such as that to which the hon. Gentleman referred. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had entered into the minutes of the Agriculture Ministers' meeting a statement to the effect that if any overspend arose from that agricultural settlement, the United Kingdom expected the cost of the overspend to be met within the existing budgetary provisions of the Community for the current financial year.

Community Expenditure

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now make a statement on the likely levels of expenditure by the Community for 1983, 1984 and 1985, respectively.

Mr. Rifkind: The Community budgets for 1983 and 1984 provide for expenditure of about £14·7 billion in each year. The preliminary draft budget for 1985 will be published in June.

Mr. Marlow: Further to the question of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), will my hon. Friend state categorically that we will not agree to any loan to the European Community this year, the effect of which would be to allow for an increase in agricultural expenditure,

which Her Majesty's Government are against, and which would also be a device for securing that our rebate would not come back to us but would be swallowed up as a loan, or at least the bulk of it?

Mr. Rifkind: Our view remains that if budgetary problems arise later in this financial year steps should be taken to reduce expenditure.

Mr. Deakins: In the opinion of the Government, have the problems of controlling agricultural expenditure in the Community now been satisfactorily resolved?

Mr. Rifkind: The agriculture decisions taken some weeks ago represent an important step forward in that, for the first time, the Community took decisions that will make a material contribution towards reducing surpluses and apply other methods of controlling the disagreeable aspects of the CAP. We would not suggest that, as a consequence, the CAP will be exactly as we would wish it, but we believe that for the first time decisions have been taken that will bring agricultural expenditure under control so that it will represent a decreasing share of Community expenditure. That has been a major British objective for many years.

Mr. Yeo: Is my hon. Friend aware that, when the Government are rightly exercising strict control over most forms of public spending, the people of Britain find it very hard to understand on what grounds an increase in own resources of the EEC can be justified?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend will be aware that the United Kingdom Government and almost all Governments within the Community, including the French Socialist Government, seek to control public expenditure. We have emphasised that it would be wrong for the Community to expect different criteria to apply to its own expenditure from those set by national Governments.

Mr. Robin Cook: Perhaps I can assist the Minister by clarifying the Government's attitude to the proposed loan. The request has not been formally received by the Government, but we all know of the Commission's decision last week. Are the Government saying to the House that when that application is formally received by the Government they will reject an application for fresh money from Britain?

Mr. Rifkind: We shall respond to a formal request from the Commission when that is received. The Government have already said that if there is overspend during the current financial year, that will have to be met by economies in existing budgetary provisions.

Community Policies

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further proposals he intends to place before his European Community colleagues for the development of Community policies.

Mr. Rifkind: The European Council reached a large measure of agreement on new policies in March, reflecting the Government's priorities. We are pressing for the necessary follow-up action to be taken as soon as possible in the relevant specialist Councils.

Mr. Knox: Can my hon. Friend say what progress has been made towards the creation of a genuinely free market


in goods and services within the Community, as outlined in the Government publication, "Britain and the European Community—A Positive Approach"?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that the organisation usually referred to as the Common Market has achieved such a description in terms of its agricultural policy rather than its internal markets. The Government have given high priority to achieving a more genuine internal market, especially in insurance and service industries. Encouraging progress has been made in the Stuttgart negotiations and we have achieved broad agreement on the need for a liberalisation of trade and services, notably in transport and insurance.

Mr. Rogers: The Minister said that he was struggling through negotiations on internal budgetary discipline and a new formula. The Government have set out the grounds for an increase of own resources to 1·4 per cent. in 1986 leading to 1·8 per cent. in 1988. The deadline for the conclusion of negotiations for the entry of Spain and Portugal will be in August. As those policies are incumbent upon the increase in own resources, will the Minister say to what extent he has committed the country to such an increase to develop them?

Mr. Rifkind: I do not accept the preamble to the hon. Gentleman's question. The Government are not committed to an increase in own resources. Their attitude remains that outlined by the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Bowen Wells: On the question of the increase in own resources, does my hon. Friend agree that the British Government's negotiating stance is that own resources will be increased if our budgetary requests are acceded to? Would it not be helful in those negotiations, and to the House, if my hon. Friend spelt out the purposes for which the increases in own resources will be used?

Mr. Rifkind: We have said that we understand that certain arguments have been used to explain why an increase in own resources would be appropriate. They relate to the likely accession of Spain and Portugal to the

Community, to some appropriate new policies and to possible increases in the regional and social funds. I must emphasise that an increase in own resources can be considered only if satisfactory agreement is reached on the British budget contribution and if there is proper control of agriculture and Community expenditure.

Mr. Maclennan: What progress have the Government made in the liberalisation of air transport within the European Community? Can the Minister say what prospect he sees for bringing down the unacceptably high level of air fares within the Community?

Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has said that the liberalisation of air transport is an important objective of Government policy. He will bring forward proposals later this week, to be discussed at subsequent meetings of Community Ministers.

Outstanding Problems (Resolution)

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if there are any new initiatives he will propose to resolve outstanding current problems between members of the European Community.

Mr. Rifkind: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton).

Mr. Haselhurst: Is it not true that the gap on the budget problem has narrowed considerably? As we are negotiating with countries that are friends and allies, not enemies, might not a further move be required on our part to ensure that we find a speedy and satisfactory conclusion to the problem?

Mr. Rifkind: I assure my hon. Friend that Her Majesty's Government have shown considerable flexibility on this matter. We remain of the view that flexibility is required by all parties involved. If the United Kingdom is to be expected to move on this matter, it must be even easier for the other nine member states also to move to reach a satisfactory solution.

Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. Stanley Orme: (by private notice)asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the current coal mining dispute.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Giles Shaw): There are pits working normally today in Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Warwickshire, Staffordshire, Lancashire, Derbyshire, Cumbria and north Wales. That means that over 35,000 men in over 40 collieries will again today demonstrate their readiness to continue working. Allowing for holidays and maintenance work, that is a level of activity fully consistent with that of last week and the previous week, when Parliament was still sitting. Picketing continues, but it has not deterred those intent on reporting for work.
Coal stocks at power stations are at a high level for the time of year, sufficient to enable the electricity industry to meet demand for many months. The National Coal Board and the coal trade are maintaining at least limited supplies to most other major customers.
The chairman of the NCB has made it clear that the board, for its part, is ready to continue discussion of the industry's long-term problems and how best to achieve the restructuring necessary to realise the high-volume low-cost industry which is the board's aim. It is a matter of regret to all those who want to see the industry resolve its present difficulties that the National Union of Mineworkers has not attended any of the recent meetings of the industry's consultative committees, including the joint meeting today of the Coal Industry National Consultative Council and the Coke Oven National Council.
I understand that the national delegate conference of the NUM decided last Thursday to amend its rules so that no more than a simple majority would be required to carry a motion in a national ballot concerning industrial action but that the opportunity of consulting the union's membership through a ballot on the present dispute was again forgone.

Mr. Orme: The reply that the Minister has just given to the House is totally unsatisfactory. The real responsibility for the dispute lies with the Government. The dispute is about jobs, the survival of whole communities and the future of a vital industry, yet after seven weeks of a major coal strike the Government have taken no action to reach a solution.
I should like to ask the Minister the following questions. To what extent are the Government subsidising the NCB to hold out against the strike? How much taxpayers' money is being used to fund the fight against the miners, money that would be better spent keeping pits open and jobs intact? What is the extra cost to the Central Electricity Generating Board of the increased use of oilburn and nuclear power to generate electricity? How is that being paid for? What are the effects of the dispute on important sectors of manufacturing industry? How can the Minister justify the closure of Cortonwood and Polmaise collieries? How can the closure of those modern pits advance the interests of the industry? Where do they fit into Mr. Ian MacGregor's picture of so-called uneconomic pits?
How do the proposals made in the press yesterday by Mr. MacGregor differ from his original plan to sack

20,000 miners and close 25 pits? What efforts are the Government making to achieve fresh negotiations that would put aside the closure plans and result in a plan for the coal industry agreed by both unions and management?
I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not present to answer my final question. He and the Minister have obligations to the coal industry. Will they now assume those responsibilities and sort out the energy policy for this energy-rich country? That policy must be based on long-term planning, as opposed to short-term financial targets, and must recognise the importance of coal as a fuel for the future.

Mr. Shaw: The right hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the future for coal, which is primarily within the hands of the industry itself. The future for coal has been underwritten by this Government and their predecessors, inasmuch as large volumes of taxpayers' money have gone into the industry.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to subsidy. I remind him that about £1 billion is going in each year from other workers through their taxes to sustain this industry, and that there is investment of £2 million a day. That is an extremely high level of investment.
It is because we have provided very substantial sums of money that the industry can look forward to a viable and high-production future. That objective is fully shared by the board, and it has been widely recognised within the industry. That is why 40,000 miners are today working for the future of the industry. I very much hope that there will be some response to the view that, given these consultative committees, the NUM should join in these discussions.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that every day last week up to 300 flying pickets from Yorkshire invaded the tiny port of Glasson Dock in my constituency despite the fact that most Lancashire miners would like to work unless and until a national ballot votes that they should all strike?

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is right. Pickets are in attendance throughout the coalfields in an attempt to deter those seeking to go to work. It is the Government's objective to see that they have that right and to ensure that that right is preserved.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Does the hon. Gentleman support Mr. MacGregor's recent statement that no miner will be forced to accept redundancy? If that is an honourable intention, and if the 20,000 miners whom Mr. MacGregor intends to make redundant all refuse to accept redundancy pay, how will he be able to close the 25 pits?

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the NCB will determine how the redundancy scheme will operate, and he also knows full well that the NCB has made the offer genuinely. It intends to see that this year, as last year, there are no involuntary redundancies in the programme.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware of the tragic dilemma of those miners, particularly in Wales, who wish to safeguard their excellent labour reputation by continuing to work in the present difficult circumstances? Will he give them the consolation of assuring them that the Government's commitment to the coal industry remains entire?

Mr. Shaw: I certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. He will know that the commitment to the Point of Ayr development is just as strong.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Why will the Secretary of State not take the positive step of summoning a meeting of the chairman of the board and the president of the union with one item alone on the agenda—"Plan for Coal"—and how it can best be implemented?

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that, given the present position in the industry, the board and those who work in it have the capacity to resolve this issue. Clearly, the NUM is split on this matter. It is not feasible for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that somehow this can be resolved by a wave of the wand from outside.

Mr. Andy Stewart: As the Nottinghamshire miners have voted to continue to work, and have shown that they will continue to do so, is it not time that the NCB implemented the new wage proposals that have been on the table since last year? Out of respect for those miners who voted against a strike, it would be only right if they received the increased pay award.

Mr. Shaw: I note what my hon. Friend says, and the House will be aware that the Nottinghamshire miners have been forthright in their acceptance of their duty to work for the future of their industry. The matter of payment is one for the National Coal Board.

Mr. Alec Woodall: The Minister has just made great play about the large stocks held by the Central Electricity Generating Board—enough, he says, to keep the electricity supply going for the next few months. is he aware that a few weeks ago an appeal was made to the officers of the Yorkshire area of the NUM by the British Steel Corporation at Scunthorpe for 16,000 tonnes of coal to be released to keep that steelworks open? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the coal required is high quality coking coal, the coal that is produced at Cortonwood, but the National Coal Board cannot supply those 16,000 tonnes of coal for Scunthorpe? This is where the dispute started. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will tell Mr. MacGregor to withdraw the closure notices and bring this silly dispute to an end?

Mr. Shaw: No, I shall not give any assurance on that, because, as the House should know by now, the National Coal Board runs its business and it is not the business of the Government to intervene. As to the hon. Gentleman's question, I am glad that arrangements have been made to ensure supplies to the Scunthorpe steelworks. However, as I think I have said to the hon. Gentleman before, consultative procedures can be initiated on Cortonwood if the NUM is willing to do so.

Mr. John Hannam: Will my hon. Friend refute the unfounded allegations made by Mr. Scargill on "The World at One" yesterday that in some way the Government have broken the terms of "Plan for Coal" of 1974? Is it not the case that the Government have upheld their agreement by investing in the coal industry throughout the years and that it is the NUM that has broken the agreement by preventing the agreed closure programme of the uneconomic pits?

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is right. Investment is one of the important factors in "Plan for Coal", and the amount invested is far higher than envisaged. The productivity

increase of 4 per cent. per annum that was aimed at has not been achieved, and it was only last year that we achieved a 4·7 per cent. increase. The reduction in capacity was expected to be about 3 or 4 million tonnes per year, but less than half that has been achieved. My hon. Friend is right. The Government have kept their promises in terms of "Plan for Coal."

Mr. Alexander Eadie: For how much longer will the hon. Gentleman deceive the House and the country that this is just a local dispute, when 80 per cent. of the miners are on strike? Are the hon. Gentleman and his Government prepared to do something constructive? Why do they not call a meeting of the tripartite inquiry, over which his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland could preside, to try to bring an end to this dispute through conciliation rather than confrontation?

Mr. Shaw: If the hon. Gentleman is after conciliation, why does he not advocate a national ballot on this issue?

Sir William Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposed number of pit closures is smaller than the number of pit closures carried out by the Labour Administration? Is not this strike nothing to do with pit closures and everything to do with politics? Is it not a disgraceful fact that Mr. Scargill, as head of the National Union of Mineworkers, refuses to negotiate?

Mr. Shaw: It is a fact that the president of the NUM has drawn his own conclusions as to what the dispute is about. It is equally incontrovertible that the future of the industry is critical, but the people who are being most damaged by what is going on are the miners, and the future of the industry is at stake.

Mr. Martin Redmond: How does the Minister equate Mr. MacGregor's recent statement about his willingness to phase in the colliery closures programme over a longer period with the Prime Minister's statement, made on two occasions to the House, that the closure programme is being scheduled? Would not the country be better served on this occasion if the Prime Minister went back to the corner shop?

Mr. Shaw: The chairman of the National Coal Board has made it clear in the consultative committee—it met again this morning — that he is prepared to discuss matters with those who are concerned with the long-term future of the industry and that the restructuring of the industry is an essential part of those discussions. Those discussions have been held with several unions in the industry. So far, the National Union of Mineworkers has refused to be a party to them.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: Does my hon. Friend agree that the gravest consequence of the strike is upon our steel industry and those who work in it whose jobs depend on coal, and upon our coal miners whose jobs depend on supplying the steel industry? Does he agree, further, that it seems apparent that the National Union of Mineworkers and its leadership are quite prepared to see the steel industry sacrificed upon the altar of Arthur Scargill's political ambition?

Mr. Shaw: I understand fully my hon. Friend's concern with the steel industry. So far the arrangements are very tenuous. They have been made to try to maintain some supplies of coal into the steel industry. It must be recognised that this is a very fragile arrangement arid that the future of the steel industry is clearly at risk.

Mr. Jack Dormand: Will the Minister confirm that the Central Electricity Generating Board, as a result of the dispute, is buying oil at a cost of £15 million a week to the taxpayer? In view of the fact that we are being told constantly that there are sufficient coal stocks to last until the autumn, is not some deception being practised at the moment?

Mr. Shaw: I have made it clear that there are sufficient stocks available to carry us through well into the autumn and for many months after that. Of course, oilburn has to be done where supplies of coal are restricted. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to complain if proper precautions were not taken.

Mr. Rob Hayward: Is not it unfortunate that the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) did not include in his comments some encouragement to the leader of the National Union of Mineworkers, Mr. Scargill, to meet Mr. MacGregor, as he has been invited to do?

Mr. Shaw: I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has heard my hon. Friend's observations. The fact remains that the president of the National Union of Mineworkers has his own view of what the dispute is about.

Mr. Michael Welsh: Is the Minister aware that the National Union of Mineworkers desires an end to the strike on reasonable terms? Is he aware, further, that the union's representatives will not negotiate at consultative meetings but will insist on conciliation meetings, which are quite different and are laid down under the nationalisation Act? Will the Minister now persuade the chairman of the National Coal Board to invite NUM representatives to meet him? It appears that Mr. MacGregor has asked every reporter and every pundit on television and radio, but has not contacted officials of the NUM. Will the Minister put pressure on the chairman to invite NUM representatives direct so that they can negotiate under the conciliation machinery?

Mr. Shaw: The National Union of Mineworkers knows full well that there are consultative meetings which involve all the unions in the industry and that they meet regularly. The hon. Gentleman will know that there have been several such meetings in recent weeks. He will also know that the National Union of Mineworkers has declined to attend. The discussions are available. The chairman of the National Coal Board has reiterated his willingness to see full union representation round the table. The National Union of Mineworkers can send its representatives if it wishes.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Has my hon. Friend any information about the cost of the private armies that are marauding round the north midlands trying to persuade fellow workers not go to their places of work? What are their rates of pay, and who is financing them?

Mr. Shaw: I have no information of the kind described by my hon. Friend. I remind him that the miners themselves are losing substantial amounts of money. It is absurd that other people are trying to prevent them from resuming their earnings.

Mr. Ray Powell: Is the Minister aware that miners, too, are losing money? Is he also aware of the remit that MacGregor was given when he was appointed

by the Prime Minister? He has ratted on his remit. Therefore, is not the best way out of the dispute to sack MacGregor and get someone else into the chairmanship who will negotatte with Arthur Scargill?

Mr. Shaw: I understand the concern that the hon. Gentleman has always expressed on Welsh coal matters. But he is quite wrong on this issue. He is quite wrong when he suggests that the remit has been reneged upon. The remit given to the chairman of the National Coal Board was virtually identical to that given to his predecessor and concerns the future viability of the industry. If the hon. Gentlemen is really concerned about that, he should be working now to achieve that structural viability.

Mr. Tony Favell: Would the Minister agree that it is all very well for Opposition Members to talk about negotiations but that there is little point in Mr. MacGregor negotiating with Mr Scargill until he knows whether Mr. Scargill even has the confidence of his own members? Does he agree that until such time as a national ballot is held, Mr. MacGregor cannot know that?

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is right. It was demonstated here today that about 35,000 miners in the industry are working — [Interruption.] — that about 35,000 to 40,000 miners are working in the industry. [Interruption.] The fact remains that, until a national ballot is held, the president of the union does not know precisely what his people really want.

Several Hon. Members: rose——>

Mr. Speaker: Order. Although this is a private notice question, in view of the interest by hon. Members with mining constituencies and others I propose to call those hon. Members who have been standing.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is it not clear that, despite everything that the Government and Mr. MacGregor have said, they have totally failed to persuade a vast majority in the NUM to accept—[Hon. Members: "How do you know?"]—as evidenced by the fact that a national overtime ban has been going on and that 80 per cent. of the miners are involved in industrial action. Is it not clear that the Government and Mr. MacGregor have totally failed to persuade NUM members that it is right to go for a massive policy of pit closures?
Despite all the assurances by Ministers, is it not clear that the Government cannot maintain the energy supplies needed by industry? Is it not also a fact that support by the transport unions shows that many millions of people in Britain recognise that the miners, by their action, are safeguarding the nation's future energy supplies?

Mr. Shaw: I hardly think that the right hon. Gentleman's last statement is consistent with his previous statement. A 4 per cent. reduction in production or output is required of the industry in the next year. That can hardly be stated to be a massive reduction in the industry's capacity. With a £2 million investment per day there is no suggestion of a major cut in resources to the industry.

Mr. Benn: That is not correct.

Mr. Shaw: The right hon. Gentleman must get the facts right. If the coal industry is to have a future it must produce volume priced according to the market and not just according to what is in the ground at the time.

Mr. Frank Haynes: When will the Minister come to the Dispatch Box and admit that Ian MacGregor


is doing this Government's dirty work? Bearing in mind that Ian MacGregor has already announced 20 pit closures, will the Minister say whether, if he gets away with those 20 closures, another 20 will close?

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that, after the discussions about the future of the coal industry, there is agreement that contraction must take place. There can be no question of retaining every single pit. We now require acceptance that, if that objective is not reached soon, the prospects for the British coal industry in terms of competing with world supplies are remote.

Mr. David Young: Does the Minister recognise that, apart from the political ping-pong, we are talking about a national asset, the jobs of people and the future of industry? When will the Minister stop looking as detached as an undertaker at a funeral? When will he intervene to bring the two sides together?

Mr. Shaw: It is absurd to suggest that we are not directly concerned with the industry's future. This Government have done more than most of their predecessors to demonstrate that determination by increasing investment and by ensuring that the industry has redundancy terms which are better than any other industry has had.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Can the Minister explain why this Government are prepared to ensure that marginally uneconomic oilfields receive money from the taxpayer as a result of the Petroleum Royalties (Relief) Act which went through the House in the last 12 months, whereas marginal pits which are likely to last much longer cannot receive the same assistance to keep them open? Is it not a nonsense to spend £850 million currently on the strike together with the £500 a week that it costs to police the strike in the Midlands? Will the Minister look at the long-term aspects? Does he agree that this winter we started with 53 million tonnes of coal in stock, that we shall start next winter with less than 30 million tonnes in stock but that we shall be better placed then than we were in 1972 and 1974?

Mr. Shaw: No, Sir.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the sad fact is that the people who will be hit hardest by the strike are likely to be the miners? Is that not because the leader of the NUM is seeking to pursue his political ends in that action? When the miners have been balloted nationally, as they should have been, they will show that they fully understand that position. Will the Government show that they fully understand the anxiety in communities direly affected by the pit closures by pursuing the proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) to establish an NCB industry company to do the type of work that the British Steel Corporation (Industry) Ltd. did after the closure of steel plants?

Mr. Shaw: I understand the importance of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but the characteristics of the coal industry are vastly different from those affecting the steel industry, in which large plants were sited in isolated communities. We are dealing with a more widespread issue. For many years, a traditional method has been established to deal with that issue.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Can the Under-Secretary of State tell the miners in my constituency, especially those formerly employed at Bogside, how much credence they can place on Mr. MacGregor's view on rephasing pit closures when at Bogside there is a clear sign of industrial vandalism on the part of management? On 12 April when I and my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) met him, Mr. MacGregor had not taken the trouble to read the report on the events leading to the cessation of production at Bogside. How much credence can the miners in my constituency give to the attitudes of a man who is paid hundreds of thousands of pounds a year to disregard what is happening to vital national assets?

Mr. Shaw: I fully understand the position to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We have discussed that problem together. The fact remains that the NCB did not take any action conducive to the loss of that pit.

Mr. Douglas: That is not true.

Mr. Shaw: That statement was made after a thorough examination of the position, and I am satisfied with it.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will electricity prices be raised to fund additional oil purchases by the Central Electricity Generating Board?

Mr. Shaw: That is not a matter involving this question. [Interruption.] I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxieties, but that is a matter that the CEGB will, no doubt, consider in due course.

Mr. Robert Adley: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. In the interests of balance, I shall call the hon. Member, although he has not previously sought to intervene.

Mr. Adley: Pursuant to the question raised by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member closed more than 250 pits in six years and that about 60 pits have been closed during the past six years?

Mr. Shaw: I can confirm that several hundred pits were closed during the period of the Labour Administration whereas many fewer—about 30—were closed during the period of the last Conservative Government.

Mr. Orme: I underline the central point made by my hon. Friends: Mr. MacGregor is carrying out Government policy. Consequently, will the Government intervene, as the Prime Minister did in 1981, to bring both sides together to reach a solution to this problem? A solution can be achieved if the Government have the will to do so.

Mr. Shaw: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that there is grave disarray within the union. He must equally be aware that attempts to invite a national ballot of the union membership have not been acceptable to the union leadership. The union must look at that position. For its part, the NCB will be looking for discussions about the industry's future, which the chairman has today reiterated his willingness to have.

Libyan People's Bureau (Shooting Incident)

4 pm

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the events of the last week arising from the shooting incident in St. James's square.
At 10 am on 17 April, a peaceable demonstration was taking place outside the Libyan people's bureau. The police were fully in control and there were no problems of public order. Without any warning, shots were fired from an automatic weapon from a window on the first floor of the bureau. Twelve people were injured and were taken to hospital, including a woman police constable, Yvonne Fletcher, who, as the House knows, died shortly afterwards. I am sure that all hon. Members will wish to be associated with the message of deepest sympathy that I sent to Yvonne Fletcher's parents. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
The police acted immediately to cordon off the area and to evacuate nearby buildings. They have since maintained a protective watch on the bureau and controlled movements there. I should like to pay tribute to the police for the exemplary way in which they have handled this difficult position throughout, with great skill and patience.
I should add that at 8 pm on 20 April a bomb exploded in the luggage collection hall at Heathrow airport, injuring 25 people. Inquiries into that further incident are continuing. It is not yet clear whether it is connected with what happened in St. James's square.
The murder of WPC Fletcher from inside the Libyan people's bureau was a barbaric outrage. It was, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, made clear in his announcement on 22 April, a wholly unacceptable and unprecedented breach of British law, international law and the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations.
After the shooting took place, we immediately asked the Libyan authorities to instruct those inside the bureau to leave the building and to allow it to be searched for weapons and explosives. That request has been repeatedly refused by the Libyans.
In the face of that Libyan refusal, we proposed to the Libyan authorities three things as a basis for terminating diplomatic relations by agreement: first, that all current occupants of the people's bureau and all other Libyan diplomatic staff in the United Kingdom should leave the country in safety; secondly, that our own diplomatic staff should leave Libya in safety; and thirdly, that we should be satisfied that all weapons and explosives were removed from the Libyan people's bureau, and that its buildings in the United Kingdom were no longer capable of being used as a base for terrorist acts.
The Libyans did not accept those proposals. Instead, they in effect suggested that the outrage of 17 April should simply be put on one side. Colonel Gaddafi proposed a Libyan commission of inquiry, to come to the United Kingdom and inquire into the facts, and for any Libyan implicated to be put on trial in Libya. We regarded that response to the flagrant abuse of diplomatic immunity and the murderous attack on WPC Fletcher as wholly inadequate.
We therefore decided to break diplomatic relations forthwith with Libya, with effect from 6 pm on 22 April. We informed the Libyan authorities that all their diplomatic staff in London and anyone else in the Libyan people's bureau in St. James's square have until midnight on 29–30 April to vacate their premises and leave the country. They are free to leave at any time before then, if they wish, and we are making arrangements for their safe passage out of the country, but we will not permit them to remain beyond Sunday night. It is at that point that any diplomatic immunity expires.
The police will satisfy themselves that anyone emerging from the bureau is not carrying arms and explosives with them when they leave the premises, and then that the premises are safe and secure. I should add that the police view is that, without the co-operation of those in the bureau, it does not seem possible that evidence could be obtained that would sustain in court a criminal charge for the murder.
We have informed the Libyans that the staff of the British embassy will be withdrawn from Libya by midnight on 29–30 April, and we look to the authorities there to fulfil their obligation to guarantee their safe departure. We have also made it clear to the Libyan authorities that we hold them responsible for the safety of the British community in Libya, to which we have attached the highest importance throughout. We have exercised our right to designate a protecting power to look after their interests. We are most grateful to the Italian Government for agreeing to undertake that task, and the Libyan Government have agreed to that. In London, the embassy of Saudi Arabia will act in a similar way for the Libyans.
I should also inform the House of the action that I have taken on other Libyans in this country or who wish to travel here. I am looking carefully at any evidence that the presence of any individual here is against the national interest, and I am not hesitating to use my powers of removal where it is. Two Libyans have been deported since the shooting. Libyans who wish to travel here from Libya will, for the time being, have to apply for visas in neighbouring states. Their applications, and those from Libyans elsewhere in the world, will have to be referred to London, where they will be thoroughly and carefully examined. Applications for entry from those already holding extant visas will similarly be scrutinised with great care, and I would advise those people to reapply. Those measures will ensure that in the coming months only in the most exceptional circumstances will Libyan nationals be admitted to this country.
I share the national sense of anger at the tragic death of a young policewoman and at the gross abuse of diplomatic immunities that caused it. We have made every effort to resolve matters peacefully and by mutual agreement. The attitude of the Libyan authorities has made it impossible for normal relations to continue. We shall continue, as we have throughout, to observe scrupulously our obligations under the Vienna convention, but what has occurred clearly raises serious questions as to the adequacy of the convention, its operation and enforceability. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will now review these matters and consider whether to put forward in the international community proposals for changes.
Hon. Members will appreciate that, until the Libyans who are going have gone and British embassy staff in


Libya return home, the position remains delicate. But we could not conceivably countenance with equanimity the outrage that we witnessed in London last week. We are responding to it firmly, but in accordance with international law. Libya for its part must now accept its clear responsibility for the protection and safe return of our staff in the British embassy and their families.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I offer our deep sympathy to the family and fiancé of Yvonne Fletcher. She died on duty, and we pay tribute to her and to all the police who have been involved in the tense vigil at St. James's square. We offer our sympathy also to all the those injured in the St. James's square atrocity and in the bomb outrage at Heathrow airport last Friday.
The whole nation feels a bitter anger at the prospect that the murderer of Yvonne Fletcher will escape the justice that should properly await him. However, I believe that most people understand why that outcome seems inescapable. Faced with the calculated flouting of all standards of decency in international behaviour in their own territory, the British Government—above all others—must demonstrate the importance of upholding the rule of international law, even in the most repugnant circumstances. That means abiding strictly by the terms of the Vienna convention.
It is proper and necessary that, in their conduct in this odious position, the British Government must have the utmost concern for the repercussions of what they do upon the lives and safety of the British diplomatic mission in Tripoli, their families and the many thousands of other British nationals in Libya. Of course, we are especially concerned about the predicament of Mr. Douglas Ledingham and Mr. John Campbell, who have been held in Libya for several days without charge. Does the Home Secretary have any information about their safety and whereabouts?
The House may not wish to pursue certain matters at this sensitive time, when the position in St. James's square is still so fragile and before our mission in Tripoli has arrived home safely. However, after the weekend deadline has passed, hon. Members will require a further statement from the Home Secretary—certainly not later than next Tuesday. It is then that searching questions may most appropriately he put about whether this crisis could have been prevented or avoided, about how weapons of the sort used in the murder of Yvonne Fletcher found their way into the people's bureau and about the conduct of the negotiations with the Libyans.
One question that must be asked now is why, three days after the St. James's square shootings, was luggage allowed to be left for hours in the luggage reclamation area of terminal 2 at Heathrow airport, where luggage from a Libyan flight was known to be kept—and that after the recent bombings in London and Manchester? The security at Heathrow seems to have been negligent to the point of culpability, and there must be an urgent inquiry into it for the sake of all travellers.
There is one supreme matter on which the whole country is united. Britain will not tolerate warring factions from other lands using our cities as their private battlegrounds. Britain stands absolutely for upholding the rule of international law, which is the only safeguard for order in a dangerous world. It is because Libya has made

an ugly mockery of the rule of law that everyone joins in condemnation of these unacceptable violations of civilised behaviour.

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentlemen for his expressions of sympathy and for his tributes to the police. I also entirely agree with him that the importance of upholding the rule of international law in these matters is paramount, and that we expect the Libyans to do that, just as we are doing it ourselves. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, in handling these matters, it is appropriate — and, indeed, essential — to take account of their repercussions in Tripoli.
We have protested vigorously to the Libyan authorities concerning Mr. Ledingham and Mr. Campbell, and we shall continue urgently to seek their release.
Extra precautions were taken at Heathrow after the incident in St. James's square, but the right hon. Gentleman would be mistaken if he believed it possible to cover all contingencies. Since the explosion, even further precautions have been put into operation in regard to the handling of baggage. The examination and consideration for which he has asked are taking place through the Department of Transport, the police, the British Airports Authority and the airlines.
I share the right hon. Gentleman's sentiment that warring factions cannot be allowed to fight out their battles in the streets of London.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: While I fully accept—as does the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)—that no possible action could be taken other than that which was taken, will my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in relation to the proposed review of the Vienna convention, it is essential to distinguish between the necessary protection of diplomats of law-abiding countries throughout the world and the need at the same time to avoid the Vienna convention being used merely as a cover for terrorism or murder?

Mr. Brittan: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that the review will need to take those aspects of the matter into account. But, as I made clear, one should focus not only on the convention and its provisions but on its enforceability.

Mr. David Steel: In his statement the Home Secretary used the phrase that diplomatic immunity would expire on Sunday night. Will he tell the House what happened after Mr Adem Kuwiri and his three colleagues accredited in the Libyan people's bureau were replaced by the so-called revolutionary student force on 19 February? Were any of those students subsequently given diplomatic accreditation and, if so, when and why? If not, is there any reason to believe that accredited diplomats were in the building at the time of the outrage?

Mr. Brittan: Since the so-called revolutionary committee took over, that have been no additions to the diplomatic list, and none of the people concerned has been accepted, so in no sense was that the case.
I understood the right hon. Gentleman to be asking about the presence of diplomats in the building. We do not know exactly who is in the building at the moment, so I cannot answer that question.

Mr. Peter Blaker: I support my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) in welcoming the Government's intention to review the Vienna convention. Is not one of the most important matters to be considered the rule which makes it impossible to verify whether diplomatic bags are carrying weapons? Will the Government consider raising that matter with our colleagues in the European Community, whose interests must be identical to ours, with a view to making proposals in a wider forum?

Mr. Brittan: My right hon. Friend has raised one matter which will no doubt be considered. At the moment, the Vienna convention—which, I remind the House, is not only an international obligation but is enshrined in our domestic law by the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964—states quite clearly that the diplomatic bag shall not be opened or retained.

Mr. James Molyneaux: In view of the long-standing Libyan support for Irish terrorists, will the Home Secretary consider the desirability of further extending the scope of the prevention of terrorism legislation? Will he be good enough to invite his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to alert and explain to Irish-Americans the dangers of supporting any branch of international terrorism?

Mr. Brittan: We have, of course, comprehensively reviewed the prevention of terrorism legislation in the new legislation which has now reached the statute book. The House will, of course, be familiar with the fact that in introducing that legislation we made provision for the first time for its extension to international as opposed to Irish terrorism. I hope that the House will feel, in the light of what has occurred, that that was a wise provision.

Mr. Dennis Walters: The whole House would wish to associate itself with the tribute paid by my right hon. and learned Friend to the performance of my constituent, WPC Fletcher, and the warm expression that he has sent to her family. She died, performing her duty, as a result of an intolerable and gross crime. Does not that also bring to light the need to review, as quickly as possible, the whole question of diplomatic privileges and rights, which have frequently been abused in the recent past?

Mr. Brittan: The examination of the Vienna convention, its operation and its enforceability, will cover the matters that my hon. Friend has in mind.

Dr. David Owen: I warmly associate myself with all the tributes paid to the bravery shown by the police, to the parents of Yvonne Fletcher and her friends, and to those injured in the bomb outrage.
I fully accept the actions that the Home Secretary has felt it necessary to take, but will he agree that the real questions now have to be answered by the Foreign Secretary? Some very serious questions need to be asked, going right back to 2 September 1979, when the Libyan people's bureau was first established.
It has been well understood for some years that Colonel Gaddafi has been fostering terrorism worldwide. There have been disturbing reports, one of which occurs in today's Washington Post, about the Government having been informed that an attack was likely to take place. Those issues need serious investigation. I understand that the Home Secretary is not able to answer them today from

the Dispatch Box, but can we have an assurance from the Government that there will be an independent inquiry into all events since 2 September 1979, and that as much as possible of the result will be published so that the House and the country can judge the conduct of affairs during the four years?

Mr. Brittan: I should make it clear to the House that I am speaking for the Government as a whole today and am ready to answer questions relating to all aspects of the matter — even questions which would in other circumstances be answered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. As I know that the matter has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman and by others outside this House, may I say that the breaking off of diplomatic relations is a very serious step? Since the war, it has been taken by this country only in relation to Albania, Uganda and Argentina.
The House might like to bear in mind, when considering the allegation of tardiness in our response, that the United States embassy in Libya was burnt down in December 1979 and that it was not until 1981 that diplomatic relations between Libya and the United States were suspended, and not even broken. In Paris, two Iraqi agents from the embassy shot dead a police inspector. Those agents were expelled but the mission was allowed to continue. It is for those reasons that the international press today regards our response to what happened in the streets of London as a robust one.
With regard to the events in this country since 1979, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, the House might like to know that in 1980 three Libyan dissidents were murdered on the streets of London, but at that time there was no proof of the involvement of the bureau. None the less, its secretary and two other members were declared persona non grata and had to leave the country. No clear link was established between last month's bombings and the Libyan people's bureau. None the less, apart from the four people who have been charged and whose trials have yet to take place, I have ordered the deportation of six Libyans. What has now occurred is different in kind, amounting to a wholly unprecedented outrage and requiring this response.

Dr. Owen: Is the Home Secretary now prepared to answer——

Mr. Speaker: Order. In fairness to the House, I think that one question is sufficient.

Dr. Owen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take points of order afterwards, in fairness to the whole House, as many right hon. and hon. Members wish to ask questions.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Did the Foreign Office pass to the Metropolitan police the advance warning received that there could be a violent reaction if the original protest march went ahead? Was it a police decision or a political decision that the "wait and wear down" strategy should be terminated without result when it had so often worked in the past?
How will the police satisfy themselves that no arms are taken out of the mission if they may not examine the bags? Is my right hon. and learned Friend now prepared to allow the police, if in future they suspect that similar murder


weapons are being brought into this country in diplomatic bags, to impound the bags at the port of entry pending application to a magistrates court for a search warrant?
Finally, in view of the Libyans' undoubted connection with the IRA, will my right hon. and learned Friend make it plain that the murderer of that British police officer will be expected to face justice elsewhere if not in this country?

Mr. Brittan: I am afraid that I could not commend to the House the change in the law suggested by my hon. Friend, as it would be in breach of the Vienna convention and, in the absence of international agreement, would not be possible.
With regard to an advance warning, Libyans came to the Foreign Office protesting about the demonstration to take place the following day and speaking in terms of not being responsible for the consequences. My hon. Friend and the House should know, however, that such language has been repeatedly used by the Libyans in that context. The House should also know that what was envisaged was not a march but a demonstration. In a free society, I do not have power to ban demonstrations. That, too, is a factor that the House will wish to take into account.
As for whether the decision to end the "wait and wear down" strategy was a police decision, all decisions taken have been co-ordinated. I remind my hon. Friend of my statement that it is the view of the police that, without the co-operation of the people in the bureau, which has been in no way evident, it does not seem possible that evidence could be obtained which could sustain a criminal charge in court for the murder.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does the Home Secretary accept that it is an abuse of the Vienna declaration and the rules of diplomatic immunity to use the diplomatic bag for the import or export of weapons? I accept that he cannot order diplomatic bags to be opened, but will he give an assurance that, through X-raying or other means not involving opening the bags, he will ensure that no weapons are imported in diplomatic bags, as he well knows occurs, and that no weapons are now exported to Libya in that way?

Mr. Brittan: The legality of X-raying is in question and the overwhelming majority of states have not adopted such practices. Clearly, that is one of the questions that will be raised in the review. It is certainly an abuse of the Vienna convention to use the diplomatic bag for the purposes to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers, but it is a feature of the convention to provide that various forms of behaviour are breaches of the convention but not to provide any way to prevent such behaviour or to deal with it when it has occurred. In addition to the doubtful legality of X-raying diplomatic bags and the fact that it would be contrary to the practice of the overwhelming majority of states, I am advised that any such scanning without opening or detaining the bag, which is plainly not permitted, would be likely to be of very limited value in determining their contents.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in the review of the matter that he will be conducting later, the right of foreign nationals, warring or not, to demonstrate in our streets should be considered?

Mr. Brittan: I am not sure that that is a matter for the review of the Vienna convention, but those who, in the

context of recent events, have doubts about the rights of foreign nationals to demonstrate in our cities may wish to consider whether they would have regarded it as appropriate to ban dissidents from eastern Europe from demonstrating outside the Soviet embassy when Afghanistan was invaded.

Mr. Ron Brown: As every effort must be made to prevent further bloodshed, why was the Libyan political attaché prevented from meeting two hon. Members on Saturday—myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart)? Is the Home Secretary aware that it has been alleged that the Foreign Office took the view that it would simply muddy the waters if Back Benchers became involved? Is that the case?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken in suggesting that the gentleman concerned was prevented from seeing the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend. That would indeed be a breach of the Vienna convention and we should not be a party to that. What happened was that the Libyan diplomat concerned and the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend were advised that, as we were engaged in extremely delicate negotiation at that stage in an attempt to resolve the matter peacefully, it was not felt that a meeting of that kind would be conducive to the resolution of the matter.

Mr. Michael Mates: When the immediate aftermath is over and the thugs who perpetrated this outrage are gone from our shores, will my right hon. and learned Friend return to the House and give us full details of the ammunition and the weapons, which must surely be found, used in the murder of WPC Fletcher? Is he aware that some of us will wish to speak more fully when the time is ripe not only about the searching of persons? Will he give an absolute assurance that nothing will leave the Libyan people's bureau which could have been used to perpetrate that outrage?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend combine that——

Mr. Speaker: Briefly.

Mr. Mates: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. This is a very important matter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Of course it is important, but other hon. Members wish to take part.

Mr. Mates: Finally, will my right hon. and learned Friend, in concert with his colleagues, ensure that action taken pending the review of the Vienna convention, which will take many months if not years to amend, will be concerted, allied action to show that, convention or not, behaviour of this kind simply cannot be tolerated by democratic people?

Mr. Brittan: On the last point, I welcome the opportunity to make it clear to the House that we have raised this matter with our friends in the international community and that in response to our points many of them have expressed their support for the action that we have taken and their horror at what occurred. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has sent personal messages to certain Heads of Government. Action most certainly has been and will be taken in the international forum.
With regard to the more specific assurance sought by my hon. Friend, he will appreciate that the Vienna


convention applies and is currently part of our domestic law. Therefore, to my deep personal regret, I cannot give the assurance in the form that he seeks.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Home Secretary comment on press reports that there were warnings from intelligence sources about the possibility of such an incident at the Libyan people's bureau? Was any such warning given and, if so, what action did the Government take?

Mr. Brittan: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not the practice to give details of intelligence matters of that kind. I will say, however, that no specific information that would lead us to believe that such an incident would occur when it did was in our hands before the event.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I warmly congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his handling of the affair throughout. Is he at all concerned that there may be incendiary or explosive devices within the building, timed to explode after the Libyans have left?

Mr. Brittan: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind personal remarks. The point that he has raised is one which the police have well in mind.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consult the Secretary of State for Education and Science with a view to ensuring that Libyan students in this country are genuine students?

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. As I have mentioned, those who are here will find that we reserve the right to consider the question of their status.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Four years ago, some of us raised during Question Time the issue of the abuse of diplomatic bags. We were informed that the use of electronic scanners was being considered. Where does the Home Secretary get the information that scanners are no good at discovering whether the bags contain ammunition and guns? I grant that it may be less easy to find out about other matters, but surely guns and ammunition show up on modern electronic scanners?

Mr. Brittan: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I spoke not lightly but on advice when I said that without opening the bag or detaining it—which is not permitted under the convention—such scanning is likely to be of very limited value in determining the contents.

Sir Philip Goodhart: I deplore diplomatic terrorism, but does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that most of the middle east-related disturbances on our streets are caused by students from certain middle eastern countries? Does my right hon. and learned Friend have plans to screen the Libyan students who are still here, with a view to removing those who have close connections with Colonel Gaddafi's regime?

Mr. Brittan: Removing students who are here would have to be done in a responsible way. I have outlined what I believe to be the right approach. I am considering carefully any evidence that the presence of any individual in this country—whether whether or not he is a student—is against the national interest. Where I have reason to believe that it is, I shall not hesitate to use my powers of removal.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Was the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) deliberately evasive? Is it not true that an American satellite monitored a transmission between Libya and London requiring those at the people's bureau not to react passively to any demonstration? Was that information communicated to the Government before the demonstration took place?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman may call my reply evasive, but he knows perfectly well that in replying as I did I was following the practice of Ministers in all Governments on such matters.

Mr. George Walden: Many of us welcome the news that Britain may pursue some revision of the Vienna convention, but will my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we must be realistic about this matter? Some 140 or 150 countries are involved, and the process may take not months or years but a decade. What are we to do meanwhile? Urgent collective action on a European basis is required. This is a matter for political will rather than for negotiation among 140 countries over a decade in the hope of improvements.

Mr. Brittan: I did not say that it was. I said that we would look not only at the question of the adequacy of the convention but also — this is relevant to my hon. Friend's question—at its operation and enforceability. When that has been reviewed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will consider whether to put forward proposals for changes in the international community. The way of proceeding which my hon. Friend—with his experience in these matters—has suggested will be one of the possibilities which my right hon. and learned Friend will wish to consider.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The tragedy of the killing of the young policewoman took place at a time when 10,000 policemen and policewomen were being used in our coal fields to arrest nearly 1,000 miners for a breach of the peace——

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Skinner: I am coming to the point.

Mr. Speaker: But it is wide of the subject.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Home Secretary bear in mind that when this tragic death occurred, Libyan demonstrators were being escorted to the picket line by a few policemen and policewomen at a time when every man and dog in the country seemed to know that a breach of the peace was likely to occur? Is the Home Secretary aware that many people in my constituency believe that the Government are operating double standards and have different priorities for different sets of people?

Mr. Brittan: I think that the vast majority of people in the country as well as of hon. Members will regard the hon. Gentleman's remark as not only irrelevant but distasteful.
The truth is that what occurred——

Mr. Skinner: It could have been avoided.

Mr. Brittan: The demonstration was wholly peaceful, and the policing of it presented no problems whatsoever until the unprovoked shooting took place.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a duty to protect the further business of the House, which is an Opposition day. I propose to let questions on the statement run for a further seven minutes before I call the Front Bench spokesman. I hope that during that time, if questions are brief, I may be able to call all those hon. Members who have been rising.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I fully commend and support the actions of the Government and of my right hon. and learned Friend, and the bravery and courage of the police. Would my right hon. and learned Friend tell us what support we have had from the EEC and the Commonwealth for our action against Libya, and what action the rest of the civilised world will take to ostracise Colonel Gaddafi and his dreadful regime?

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend will appreciate that responses are not always immediate, especially when a tragic event occurs during a holiday weekend. We have received expressions of support from the United States—very strongly—and from Australia, Canada, Belgium and Norway.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm reports that, for many years, Libyan representatives in this country have flatly refused to adhere to diplomatic protocol — for instance, by not having an embassy or an ambassador, and strongly resenting having diplomats? If that is so, why must we extend diplomatic immunity to the Libyans?

Mr. Brittan: The position is not entirely as my hon. Friend has outlined. The Libyan embassy began to call itself a people's bureau in 1979. Discussions with the Libyan authorities made it clear that the essential functions of the mission would remain unchanged. The same thing happened in many other countries, which took the same view as the United Kingdom of the essence of what was going on.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): We have already heard Colonel Gaddafi threaten the safety of British citizens in Libya in retaliation for any steps that the Government may wish to take in this country. What can the Government do to ensure that such blackmail will be less effective in future than it may have appeared to be in the past?

Mr. Brittan: As long as we maintain international relations, and as long as substantial numbers of our fellow countrymen — for good and proper business or other reasons — live in other countries, there can be no guarantee that events of this kind will not occur. Fortunately, they have been extremely rare. The international community has invariably condemned them, and appropriate action has been taken. However, if my hon. Friend thinks that any guarantee can be provided—unless everyone stays at home—I am afraid that he is mistaken.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: While the whole House must endorse the Government's action and understand the inhibitions on what the Home Secretary has said this afternoon, does my right hon. and learned Friend not think that the concern shown, both nationally and in the Chamber this afternoon, suggests that it would be helpful to the Government if Parliament could be fully involved in the investigation of what has happened in this

dreadful case? Specifically, will he consider the desirability of setting up a special Select Committee to report on what might be done?

Mr. Brittan: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will note that suggestion.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that in 1896 the London police did not hesitate to enter the Chinese embassy, there to rescue Sun Yat-Sen, who had been kidnapped and held there against his will. That being the case, many people are deeply disturbed about why the British Government have failed to take action against this so-called embassy for so long when it appears to be a place for terrorist operations and is now a haven for a murderer, which murderer will go scot free. As none of this was envisaged by the framers of the convention, why is it so sacrosanct?

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend has asked why it is sacrosanct. One reason which he as a lawyer would, I should have thought, respect is that it happens to be part of our domestic law.

Mr. John Butterfill: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, while many British people welcome the contribution to academic life that genuine foreign students make they are heartily sick of the activities of those who are not? Many of them seem to have as their primary purpose political activity, some of it subversive and, as we have now seen, some of it downright murderous. Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider making it a condition of entry for foreign students that they confine their activities to the pursuit of their academic studies? Will he make it a condition that they be expelled if they involve themselves in political activity?

Mr. Brittan: There is a difference between political activities and violent activities. I assure the House that, if there was any suspicion that students were engaged in violent or subversive activity, they would not be admitted and that if there were any reason to believe that they were admitted without such suspicion and such suspicion subsequently arose, they would be required to leave.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider the fact that, next Sunday, when the Libyans emerge from the bureau, there will be two categories of people—those with diplomatic immunity and those with none? Is there any reason why he could not instruct the Metropolitan Police to investigate, search and question those who do not have diplomatic immunity?

Mr. Skinner: They would if they were miners.

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend will recall what I have said about the police's view of the prospect of sustaining a criminal charge. He will take account of the overriding need to get rid of a dangerous presence in the country and, above all, he will take account of the important and essential aim of securing the safe return of our diplomats and their families in Libya when pursuing that suggestion.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the sensible way in which he has handled this extraordinarily delicate situation? Does he believe that there is a case, in


the longer term, for amending the Public Order Act 1963 to give him and the Commissioner the same powers to control static demonstrations as to control marches?

Mr. Brittan: We are examining that. As my hon. Friend, with his knowledge of these matters, knows there is a review of public order legislation and the issue of the control and regulation of static demonstrations is certainly one of the aspects of that review.

Mr. Bowen Wells: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the calm, determined and responsible manner in which he has carried out negotiations? Can he assure us that, on the expiry of diplomatic immunity, no precipitate action will be taken by the Government so as to make it certain that our nationals in Libya are not imperilled?

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind personal observations. I deeply hope that this matter can be ended peacefully and that no more problems of that type arise. I am anxious that the people in the bureau and other Libyan diplomats should leave the country, that our people should return safely from Libya and that it is possible to ensure that the premises are safe. Those are our objectives. We shall continue to try to achieve them in a calm and measured way.

Mr. Speaker: Point of order, Dr. Owen.

Dr. Owen: My point of order is more related to the procedure of the House. I wish to ask another question of the Home Secretary, if he would not mind, as he has widened the statement to cover the responsibilities——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will fully accept that to use a point of order as a method of asking an additional question is very unfair to other hon. Members.

Dr. Owen: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I am very sorry, but I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to do that.

Dr. Owen: Further to that, if the Home Secretary comes to the House to answer questions relating to his handling of the siege, I do not think it unreasonable to expect that he would not answer detailed questions relating to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. He then implied, generously, that he was prepared to do so, and it is reasonable that we should be able to probe him on some of those matters. He has already widened his statement to the issues to which I have referred but did not ask about in detail. My request is legitimate in that, when you, Mr. Speaker, intend to ask the spokesman for the Labour party to speak again, it is not unreasonable on some of these issues that some of us may be asked—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I judge from the reaction of the House that this is not a doctrine that would be generally acceptable.

Dr. Owen: Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman, who is a very experienced Member of Parliament, please do not abuse points of order by seeking to raise a second question, which, I think the whole House would agree, he has no right to do. He has the same rights as any other Back Bencher and I cannot allow any further points of order on this matter.

Dr. Owen: Further to your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It must be on a different point of order; I shall not allow the right hon. Gentleman to raise a further point of order on this matter.

Dr. Owen: I am just questioning the extent of your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Is the extent of your ruling that no second questions should be asked by anyone other than those speaking from the Labour Opposition Front Bench? If that is so, we should have it clarified.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that what I said has been a convention of the House for very many years and that that is the present position.

Mr. A. J. Beith: You have just said, Mr. Speaker, that it has been a convention of the House for many years that on no occasion will a second question be taken from anyone other than the Opposition Front Bench. There are cases, which could be cited, of your predecessors doing precisely that for my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), the Leader of the Liberal party, for the Leader of the Social Democratic party and for others. As to the matter of fact, I hope that you will define your ruling in such a way as not to deny what has happened for many years and has been seen widely reasonably to reflect the existence of other groups in the House with points of view to put forward.

Mr. Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. No.

Mr. Skinner: I was going to give you some help.

Mr. Speaker: I can deal with it—I do not need any help. Very frequently right hon. and hon. Members disagree with the answers that they have received or, having heard the answers, would like to expand on the questions. If I were to accede to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) I should have to accede to it for the leader of every other minority party in the House; I think that that would be utterly unacceptable to Back Benchers.

Security Services

Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the failings of the security services revealed by the Bettaney case.
The case is specific and its importance is beyond dispute. It is the latest and one of the worst in a long series of cases that reveal failings in the security services. It shows that vetting procedures failed to identify a potential defector at a senior level in the security services and that search procedures that would have revealed his activities were not carried out. Those procedures are still being relied on and the people who failed to operate them effectively are presumably still in post. That makes it the more urgent that the House should have the opportunity to consider the method.
It has been announced that the Prime Minister has referred the matter to the Security Commission. That gives added reason for an urgent debate. If the House had been sitting when the conviction of Bettaney occurred we should have expected the Prime Minister to make a statement to the House announcing the reference to the Security Commission. That is what she did when, for example, the Prime case was referred to the Security Commission. The right hon. Lady would then have been questioned on that statement and hon. Members would have had an opportunity to draw attention to those aspects of the matter which they felt the Security Commission should consider. It would also have been an opportunity to question whether a routine reference to the Security Commission is an adequate response to a case of this gravity and to question whether the commission is adequately constituted to reflect the range of concern.
The Prime Minister could have made that statement today, but she did not do so. Therefore, the commission has embarked upon its consideration without reflecting the concern that exists in Parliament. It is for those reasons that the House should have an opportunity to voice its opinions and concerns, and it should be able to do so urgently.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the failings of the security services revealed by the Bettaney case.
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Discharge of Radioactive Material (Control)

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate further the discharge of nuclear material from existing and future nuclear reprocessing plants and other establishments.
I want to make it clear to the House at the outset that this subject is intensely boring. Nevertheless, it is also an area of great concern both to environmentalists and to those who wish to secure a safe future for the nuclear industry. My Bill's objective is statutorily to regulate discharges of liquid nuclear waste into the sea. In particular, it will affect operations at Windscale, currently known as Sellafield. That plant is recognised as being responsible for 75 per cent. of the entire radiation dose received by the European Community from all nuclear installations.
At present, discharges of radioactive material into the water or the air are controlled by the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. Discharges and disposals must be authorised under that Act. Control of discharges from nuclear power stations, reprocessing plants and nuclear fuel manufacturing plants in England is exercised jointly by the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Authorisation of waste discharges is given by the relevant Departments, subject to conditions on the amounts of radioactive substances which may be released.
Current legislation does not specify discharge limits. Nevertheless, the Department of the Environment's guide to the administration of the Act says that authorisations for liquid wastes are kept under regular review, in keeping with ICRP recommendations. The ICRP is the International Commission for Radiological Protection, and it issues guidelines only. Its guidelines are based on what is referred to as "dose limitation criteria". It should be said that they are surrounded by unending controversy as they represent only the maximum dose safety limits. They are not regulatory, merely advisory, and are under increasing attack from scientists throughout the world.
Discharge limits, as they relate to ICRP guidelines on dosage to population, provide for doses with an upper limit — excuse the technicality, Mr. Speaker — of 5 millisieverts. In addition to that limitation, authorisations for discharges generally include a clause making specific reference to the principle that discharges should be as low as reasonably achievable. That is known as ALARA. That is usually taken to mean that a cost-benefit analysis should be applied when decisions about discharge levels are made. It is that principle which I am asking the House to reject today.
Cost-benefit analysis is an appalling basis on which to decide discharge levels when, even on the most conservative of estimates, the nuclear industry, in particular in the United States, is now held responsible for deaths and serious illness. Are we to tell the surviving relatives of those who have been lost through radiation-induced cancer that their demise was avoidable but that the costs outweighed the benefits? Surely not, Mr. Speaker.
In Cumbria, Sir Douglas Black is currently examining the incidence of radiation-induced disease. Whatever his findings — I am sure that the House will join me in


hoping that he finds none — that perceived risk will remain. In Cumbria we cannot afford the principle of ALARA which I have outlined.
In a recent letter from the English tourist board it was said that the great majority of people in the United Kingdom were not over-concerned about the most recent television programmes which drew attention to Sellafield discharges. Yet in its most recent correspondence to me it says that there is no direct evidence from research within the tourism industry that incidents at Sellafield have affected tourism. The responsible regional tourist board has been consulted for local views. It reports that accommodation bookings in the forthcoming season are generally equal to those of last year or have increased in Cumbria as a whole. That is a vote of confidence in Cumbria. Nevertheless, and despite those assurances, there is local concern about discharge limits.
We reject ALARA and demand ALATA—as low as technically achievable. That principle is now supported by 274 hon. Members and by the Irish Government, the closest state affected by contamination of the Irish sea. It is supported by the five Nordic nations of Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, who recently carried a resolution at the recent meeting in Dun Laoghaire calling for a savage reduction in discharge levels. The ALATA principle is supported by West Germany — a partner of Britain in the seabed working party. They are now breaking ranks within the nuclear waste research body by joining the chorus of international opinion demanding an early resolution of the problem of nuclear waste discharges into the sea.
Hon. Members may recall that the International Water Tribunal, on which sits the noble Lord Cranbrook, criticised the Sellafield discharges and last year called for reductions to near zero. Since then the EC has passed a similar resolution, which will come before the Council of Ministers in due course. Trade unions throughout Britain and in Ireland have expressed their outrage at the discharges, which have in the recent past been greater in their radioactive content than the annual dump of radioactive waste into the Atlantic — itself a practice outlawed by the London dumping convention.
There is no controversy at Sellafield over whether discharges have a calculable health impact, but merely over the level of impact. If the Government are to act in a credible way which will restore people's faith in nuclear

technology, and which acknowledges international disquiet, it is imperative that we admit past mistakes and accept ALATA now.
The House should not construe my Bill as an attempt in any way to shackle the British nuclear industry. That is not my intention. I am saying that if nuclear power is to stay—I support its staying—the industry must be safe, and be seen by everyone to be safe. If we are to realise the level of safety demanded by the country, ALATA—the principle of employing the latest available technology in the reducion of nuclear discharges — is an absolute necessity. It is wrong for the people of Cumbria to have to carry the environmental cost of serving the nation's energy needs.
There are precedents for the discharge limits that I am seeking to legislate in my Bill. The French built at a comparable time and on a comparable scale to Sellafield, although half the size, a reprocessing plant at Marcoule in France. So low are its discharge limits that it operates in a more restrictive environment—a fresh water river, the River Rhone. Over the last 10 years it has achieved control limits nearly 4,000 times better than at Sellafield for Alpha emitters and, according to Greenpeace, more than 17,000 times better for fission products.
The Americans are planning to build a second reprocessing plant at Hanford in America. The proposed discharge levels are near zero. In Germany, plans for a large-scale reprocessing plant will also incorporate control technology which will result in the total liquid discharge figure being kept to below 1 curie a year for all emitters—approximating to one quarter of 1 millionth of recent Sellafield discharges. These countries have managed to accomplish what I and my supporters want for Britain. The measure sets the achievements abroad as our objective. I invite the House to support the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Campbell-Savours, Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. Ken Maginnis, Mr. Clement Freud, Mr. Peter Hardy, Mr. John Maxton, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Reg Freeson and Mr. Frank Cook.

DISCHARGE OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL (CONTROL)

Mr. Campbell-Savours accordingly presented a Bill to regulate further the discharge of nuclear material from existing and future nuclear reprocessing plants and other establishments: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 27 April and to be printed. [Bill 161.]

Opposition Day

[13TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Transport

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) to move the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Opposition day is shown on the Order Paper as the 13th allotted day. I wonder whether you would care to give your guidance on the accuracy of that? I recall that on 3 April we had the 12th allotted day to the Opposition, which was halved by the Opposition's own choice, because they gave back to the Government half their allotted time. Ought not this Opposition day to be shown on the Order Paper as the 12th allotted day? Are the Government about to give the remaining half day to Opposition parties other than the Labour Party?

Mr. Speaker: We dealt with that before the Easter recess. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that I have no knowledge of what goes on between the usual channels.

Mr. John Prescott: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the Government's transport policy which is based on an ideological obsession with competition, profit, privatisation and reduced Government financial support and inadequate investment, which has resulted, since 1979, in higher fares, poorer services, massive redundancies, reductions in rail services and bus route miles, especially in the rural areas, and a serious deterioration in road and rail infrastructure; notes that a policy of privatisation and competition has reduced the United Kingdom merchant fleet by 500 ships, and is creating greater uncertainty in our ports, waterways and aviation industries; affirms that the provision of a comprehensive efficient and integrated transport system at prices which do not unreasonably constrain demand cannot be provided by reliance solely on market forces; and therefore calls upon Her Majesty's Government to pursue those policies which meet the essential needs of a modern developed economy.
In the motion we condemn the Tory Government's ideological obsession to sweep away the public controls, standards and democratic accountability of past transport policies in the name of competition and user interests which in reality is a pursuit of monetary objectives to reduce public financial support. Four years of Tory transport and economic policy, followed by a mass of transport legislation, have produced fewer services and higher costs to the user and taxpayer, and a deliberate policy to increase transport unemployment. The main beneficiaries have been the plunderers of public assets at knock-down prices.
This is the first comprehensive transport debate that the House has had since 1977 when the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) returned from the United States with bold new ideas for transport policies for Britain of car sharing, trial areas and deregulation to replace the public service meeting public needs with competition and profit for private interests. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield — later to become the first of the Government's four Secretaries of State for Transport—

in that debate attempted to indict the Labour Government for their inactivity in transport policy which he believed was detrimental to the transport user's interests.
It may be useful at the beginning of the debate to compare the four years of Labour Government, which the then Opposition spokesman the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was condemning, with the four years of Tory Administration and their effects on the public transportation system. I seek to use an impeccable and impartial source for my comparison—the Department of Transport's publication on transport statistics. I shall look at the total picture of transport in the country and then make some comparisons for similar periods within the individual sectors of the transport industries.
In the total picture, one finds that passenger journeys by rail increased during the last four years of the Labour. Government by 47 million. The following four years of Tory Administration led to a massive decline in passenger use of rail totalling 118 million. On the bus side, we witnessed what has been a continuing decline over a considerable period — certainly since before 1979. Passenger journeys by bus in the four years of Labour rule declined by 700 million. In the four years of Tory Administration, with their new competition and transport policies, something like 1,000 million passengers were driven off the buses. However, revenue support for transport policies has doubled from £410 million to £835 million. Thus, in the four years of Tory Administration the user in the country has been paying a lot more for a lot less, and has been paying more as a taxpayer.
As to those employed in the transport industries, in the four years of Labour Government, employment in the transport industries increased by 6,000 extra jobs per year. Four years of Tory Administration produced a reduction of 30,000 jobs per year in the transport industries—a total of 120,000 jobs. It is clear that the user and the employee are considerably worse off as a result of the Government's policy.
One benefit of the policy which has often been put forward in the House is the development of the competition of inter-city coaches with British Rail. Indeed, it was the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield who, with great publicity, waved off the new venture into privatisation of coach services called "the British Coachways." It was to collapse within 12 months. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State for Transport has not been discouraged by the fact that the private sector has not been able to offer the new private services that were predicted. Indeed, he is now overruling the traffic commissioners whose judgments have often been used to maintain the public interest, as defined in public legislation. The traffic commissioners, in judging applications for private competitive coaches, which want to operate only in profitable times and on profitable routes, have ruled against them when they have considered that this would undermine the general cross-subsidised rural and urban transport that has been a common feature of public transportation in the country. Not to be outdone by that, the Secretary of State for Transport is now considering further the possibility of overruling the traffic commissioners' judgment about the provision of minibuses in the London area.
It is interesting to note that in some cases those judgments, after the decision of the Secretary of State to overrule the traffic commissioners, were eventually taken


to the courts. Regarding the evidence of the Secretary of State and the Department of Transport, the Law Lords said:
There was a marked difference between the detailed examination of the issues in the commissioner's decision and the inspector's report and the almost barren disposal of the material in the Transport Secretary's decision letter.
That will come as no surprise to those of us who are used to facing him across the Dispatch Box or in Committee. The Secretary of State is rarely concerned about evidence; he is concerned with his ideological obsession to introduce competition at any price.
It is not surprising that the aviation and shipping industries, which have been welcomed into the Department of Transport—I hope that they will soon be joined by the waterways industry, which has an important role in a comprehensive transport system—have begun to fear the Secretary of State's policy, which will mean facing domestic and international competition. The Governments of most countries play a supporting part in protecting and advancing the interests of their aviation and shipping industries.
All aviation routes are negotiated by Governments in bilateral agreements, and all decisions on routes affect airports and aviation policy. As the Opposition said in 1981, in proceedings on the Civil Aviation Bill, it was clearly nonsense to expect that the Civil Aviation Authority could deal with all the problems of regulation and control in the aviation industry and that the Secretary of State could stand aside from the important issues involved. Since the Civil Aviation Act 1980, Secretaries of State have constantly intervened in the provision of international and domestic routes. In some cases, the Secretary of State has intervened to overrule CAA decisions which, in the case of British Midland Airways, will only increase the problems caused by the Government's ceiling on flight movements at Heathrow.
The Government's declared policy for the privatisation of the aviation industry will undoubtedly mean a difficult decision for them. They wish to sell British Airways at the best possible price, with the many routes in its network, but at the same time they are suggesting that there should be an optimum size for aviation companies in competition and that the Secretary of State can arbitrarily pinch routes from British airlines. If that happens, British interests will be undermined, especially bearing in mind the competition from international airlines, and more aviation unemployment will follow.
The Government's obsession in not protecting British industries is most savagely seen in shipping. As an island nation, Britain needs its fleet. British seamen were welcomed as heroes during the Falklands affair, but since 1979 a fleet of 1,200 ships has been reduced to 700—the industry predicts that it will decrease to 400 by 1986—which means the loss of two British ships for every week since the Government came to power. Our great British merchant fleet has been reduced to one third of its size since the Tories came to power, 30,000 seafarers' jobs have gone, and they face wage cuts from Budget proposals to cut overseas allowances. Today only one third of British goods are carried in British ships.
The Government's ideological obsession is reflected in their attitude to the threat of competition. When the threat comes from flag-of-convenience ships, which represent 30

per cent. of the world's fleets and which are growing because they offer tax havens, cheap crews, unsafe vessels and unfair competition, the Secretary of State, only response is to say that he believes in competition and to assure us that he will use his port state controls, as agreed in the Community, to enforce international safety standards.
However, I have given the Secretary of State examples of where his Department's inspectors have failed to carry out their obligations under the agreement. In one instance a ship that was passed as safe by the Department's inspectors was stopped from leaving a German port because it had more than 30 faults, mainly with its lifeboats, rudder and compasses. To be fair, the Secretary of State apologised for misleading me when he said that he thought the vessel was safe after the inspector released it, but he was not prepared to act in that case.
The Russians provide 5 per cent. of the world's ships. The Secretary of State is now prepared to consider proposals for new merchant shipping legislation to counteract the threat of the Russian menace, but there is no such response to the flag-of-convenience ships, which pose the main threat to our fleet. The Minister with responsibility for shipping has visited Norway many times to discuss protection, but the measures taken by the Norwegians to protect their fleet from outside competition have been at the direct expense of British ships and British seamen's jobs in the North sea, even in the area of our drilling operations. The conversations and discussions have produced little action or change.
The link between our great land transport industries and the sea is our ports, which have an excess capacity of about 50 per cent. in both conventional handling and containerisation. Although 20,000 jobs have been lost in the ports since 1979, the Government's response was to sell the British Transport Docks Board at a loss to the taxpayer, on a proper evaluation, of between £25 million and £30 million, to say that all ports should be private and to threaten an attack on the National Dock Labour Board's schemes because of the belief that a high cost of wages was involved.
I warn the Secretary of State that if he proceeds along that road and avoids his responsibility to take decisions under present legislation—he has given notice that he divests himself of the responsibility for making a decision on whether Falmouth should add to the capacity for containerisation—he will be fuelling the fires for an industrial dispute of a considerable size in our ports.

Mr. Tim Smith: That is all very negative stuff. Has the hon. Gentleman noticed since the Government sold shares in Associated British Ports, how successful that company has been?

Mr. Prescott: Clearly the hon. Gentleman does not know about the performance of the British Transport Docks Board before it was privatised. If he goes to the Library and examines its profit or productivity record—however he wishes to measure it—he will see that it always had a fair measure of success. The hon. Gentleman is clearly not from a port area — [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should go to the Library as I suggested. He has shown his ignorance on the Floor of the House, but he might improve his performance by looking up the facts before he intervenes.
The motion states that there has been a deterioration in transport, so I must justify that statement and attack the


Government's policy. The Government cannot be indifferent to the pattern of transport locations. In the 1970s we pursued the idea of building roads to ports. However, now the roads go to ports which have little traffic and the expanding ports are demanding more investment in roads at a time when road improvement and maintenance are deteriorating. That was shown by the Department's independent survey, which stated:
Assessment of underlying trends is however more important than simple comparisons between two years. Between 1977 and 1980, the general trend was one of improvement, followed by deterioration up to 1982.
That was improvement under a Labour Government and deterioration under a Tory Government.
The sole response to that decline in our network and the appearance of a patchwork quilt of maintenance notices in the papers that point to this year's provisions for motorway traffic is to allow bigger and faster lorries to use our motorways, with deteriorating infrastructure and adding further to lorry drivers' unemployment.
The Government's abdication of responsibility for the matter is shown especially by their ignoring many of the proposals in the Armitage report. The Government, compared with the Labour Government, are building fewer bypasses to deal with large lorries. That has led to local authority initiatives, in which more than 12,000 lorry bans have been documented. The latest example of local authority initiative is in the GLC's Wood inquiry, which the Government have attacked but to which they have offered no alternative other than the free access of lorries to urban areas. The Government's further response to local authority action has been to propose the abolition of the GLC and to introduce Tory quangos. No doubt those quangos will he used as the means of implementing the changes in London's roads that the Secretary of State wants to see, without the usual inquiries that are possible under legislation.
The nationalisation of London Transport has shown us how the Government deal with the transport needs of Londoners. It was no surprise to many of us that, within days of considering the London Regional Transport Bill, the Secretary of State, in a headlined article in The Standard of Thursday 12 April, said:
Yes, fares will have to go up.
The article makes it clear that there will be cuts in services, and redundancies. The consequences of privatisation were often denied in Committee. The Secretary of State even said that Tory Members would not vote against the Bill. That is untrue, as a Tory Member voted against it. The Secretary of State is not often factually correct in his approach to these matters.
The London Regional Transport Bill will cause higher fares, fewer services and more redundancies. Tory policy will be introduced in all the passenger transport areas, where Labour's successful transport policies were regularly voted for by local electors. We have seen the comparison between Tory and Labour passenger transport areas in the different principles and policies of high and low fares. Indeed, the only reversal in the decline in the number of people using public transport has been in areas such as Tyne and Wear and South Yorkshire. The level of support given there, from 50 to 60 per cent. of revenue costs, is equivalent to the normal rates of support for European transport systems. The usual level in the United

Kingdom is about 30 per cent. The Secretary of State could learn much from a study of the 10 years of operation of the passenger transport authorities.
When we compare the authorities with another bus transportation system—the National Bus Company—we see that a considerable decline in passengers has resulted from the policies that it has been forced to pursue, with little direct public support except what it can get from local authorities. The National Bus Company has a high fares policy. Again, when we compare Labour and Tory Administrations, the decline in passengers on National Bus Company buses of 7 million a year during Labour's period of office accelerated to 60 million a year and vehicle miles were halved under the Tory Administration.
The Tories can say — no doubt it gives great satisfaction to the Secretary of State — that the company's profits increased from £5 million in 1979 to £40 million today. The National Bus Company, in the process of showing that profits can be made by nationalised industries, is clearly a candidate for privatisation.
Those profits are made at a heck of a price. The desire for increased profits has proved bad for rural areas with fewer services. It has considerably reduced many thousands of jobs on national buses. The only claim in favour of a national bus policy — I assume that the Government may claim it tonight — is that there are more inter-city services, which means that lower prices must be introduced in competition on the routes between our main towns. That has been at the expense of rural services, and it has also added to the competition difficulties of inter-city rail services, which have considerable financial problems.
It is clear that the 5 per cent. return on capital imposed upon inter-city rail services will not be achieved. When one considers that the loss in 1982 was £159 million, it is no surprise that the only routes likely to show profits, by that definition, are the east and west coast runs. The inter-city services operating cross-country in the west and the north will not be able to meet the financial targets. That might cause further threats to them and overall inter-city investment when assessments are made in 1988.
Today the trade unions launched a demand for a hygh investment low fare strategy for British Rail. It is undoubtedly true that we have the worst-financed railway system, with the lowest level of investment in Europe. Although the level of Government investment was not good enough under Labour, in the four years of the Labour Administration it was about £415 million a year. Under the Conservatives it was reduced to £343 million a year. We should bear it in mind that Germany invests three times as much in its railways, and France spends twice as much.
British Rail's plan in 1980 made it clear that it needed a minimum investment of £600 million a year to maintain its high investment strategy. The answers given by the Secretary of State at Question Time make it clear that some of the investments on his desk were withdrawn by British Rail. It is important for us to understand some of the reasons why an investment of £330 million by British Rail was withdrawn.
I wrote to the chairman of British Rail to ask why, with such a shortage of investment in British Rail, he felt that he could withdraw more than £300 million for British Rail. He replied by picking out certain investments, including the five-year rolling programme for the construction of freight rolling stock of £136 million. That was cancelled


and withdrawn primarily because the chairman felt that the freight sector could not meet the financial targets that were set for it and closed Shildon.
The rolling programme for the construction of the EMU vehicles for 1980 to 1984 is in two batches of £164 million. Some of those have already been undertaken. In his reply, the chairman of British Rail said:
It is clear that the Department of Transport's support for the rolling programme has waned. Indeed, the programme is running two years behind its original schedule.
On the third area of the construction of 180 MK III loco-haul day coaches at £34 million, the reason for the withdrawal by British Rail was that it believed:
There was never a strong financial justification for these 180 vehicles … The timing of its investment was strongly influenced by a production gap at BREL's Derby Litchurch Lane Works.
Those men are desperately in need of work. We are desperately in need of modern coach work. Yet, because of the new political climate and financial stringencies being placed upon British Rail through reduction in its financial support, it has been forced to reassess its investment position and prepare BREL for privatisation.

Mr. Conal Gregory (York): The hon. Gentleman suggests that British Rail has been starved of investment, but nothing could be further from the truth. If he considers the factors involved, he will see that British Rail has asked for an external financing limit of £936 million, which was not reduced by the Government. The limit was decided by agreement. All the investment that has been requested by British Rail has been fulfilled, quite contrary to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. Prescott: I do not have time now to take up that matter, except to say that the external financing limits are not a problem for British Rail. It suffers from a lack of capital with which to carry out investments. Money comes from the Government or from fares. That is the way investment is financed. Without sufficient resources, there will be cuts.
The hon. Gentleman's point is sound when one considers that British Rail is being forced to reduce services and maintenance on its rural network and, indeed, throughout its whole network. We have heard the Secretary of State constantly saying that there has been a cut in services of only 2 per cent. At least the cut is of not more than 2 per cent. A letter sent to me by the transport users' consultative committee for London makes it clear that
percentage reductions are of the order of 25 to 30 per cent., with a few at 60 per cent. Drops from 30 minutes to 50 minutes frequencies. It really is dishonest of various defenders of the policy to state that cuts amount to 2 per cent. overall.
That statement shows the sharp edge of the policy's effect. There have been cuts in routes such as the Goole line and the Settle-Carlisle line. Such cuts are leading to the overall reduction of our rail system. Savings are being made through increasing unemployment. British Rail's PSO has been reduced to zero by the Secretary of State, so it finds savings in other ways. It does so by reducing services and employment. In the four years of Labour's period of office, the number of jobs in British Rail was reduced by 1,000 a year. That number increased under the Tory Government to 6,000 a year, and there is now a predicted figure of 10,000. According to the chairman's estimate, by 1986 there will be a loss of 60,000 jobs or a

saving of £300 million in the wage bill. Savings will be made through further mass unemployment in British Rail, and also by the privatisation of assets, which British Rail sets at about £265 million.
The body in charge of selling the taxpayers' assets for British Rail is British Rail Investment Ltd. It sold the hotels at half their market value and it gave away hovercraft. The company concerned is now known as Hoverspeed. The original company, valued at £11 million, was given to a few people in management, about which there are few details. The chairman of British Rail Investment Ltd., which gave away the company to Hoverspeed, also sat on the board of Hoverspeed. I should have thought that that was a definite conflict of interests. BRIL is also in charge of selling Sealink. There have been low earnings and losses in Sealink that can only be detrimental to its sale value at this time. That is why I referred the matter to the Public Accounts Committee. It is a scandalous disposal of public assets. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State may laugh, but if he thinks that it is satisfactory for a person to give one company's assets to a board on which he sits, I believe that many other people will not. In that case, there is a clear conflict of interest.
The Government's policy for British Rail was predicted in Serpell. Forty-three Tory Members from the south wrote to the National Union of Railwaymen saying that they rejected Serpell and believed in a high investment policy. However, one should look at what the Government are doing. Theirs is not a high investment policy. It is in line with Serpell's recommendations. Tory Members should bear that in mind when they vote on the motion.
The Tory Government's policy represents an ideologcial obsession with introducing competition by rolling back the frontiers of Socialism. Exposed for what it is, it is an ideological obsession with market ideology, an inevitable consequence of their monetary policy. It is an excuse to plunder the taxpayers' assets, producing disintegration of our transport, damaging our nation's competitiveness, producing fewer services at higher prices, paid for by massive unemployment, placing a greater burden on those who depend on public transport, and replacing a public service, meeting public transport needs, with competition, privatisation and profit. By voting for our motion, we shall commit ourselves to a reversal of those vicious Tory policies. We shall certainly reverse them on our return to office.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'welcomes the steps Her Majesty's Government is taking to improve the transport system of the United Kingdom.'.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has hardly made his case. He must substantiate the first word in the title of the motion:
Deterioration of British Transport Systems".
What deterioration? Since 1979 total passenger mileage has increased by 12 per cent. There has been rapid expansion. Private passenger car mileage has increased by 18 per cent. It is true that conventional public transport has declined. The number of rail passengers is down by 5 per cent., and bus passengers by 17 per cent., but the Labour party must realise that transport is for the benefit of the traveller, not the operator. If travellers prefer to go by car


and can afford to do so, that is a sign of progress. More people do so every year. They are exercising their freedom of choice to do so, and I am delighted that they can. It is excellent news. I make it clear that, unlike the Labour party, we welcome it. Why do the Opposition hate car owners so much? I cannot understand it.
Freight has also increased over the years. Equally, it has moved for the benefit of the customers. The proportion of all domestic freight going by road as opposed to rail in the early 1950s was about 35 per cent. In the early 1980s it was about 60 per cent. Over the same 30 years road freight has trebled and rail freight has halved. That is because businesses find it cheaper and more efficient to send their goods by road, yet the Opposition would frustrate that.
The hon. Gentleman, speaking at a conference at Heathrow on 23 March, said that he wanted to bring in some form of quantity licensing for heavy lorries, which was most interesting. He also said, on a side issue:
Political pressure did force the Government to propose the 38 tonner despite Armitage making it clear that damage to the roads would be no greater from a 44 tonner. Clearly logic is not a sufficient counter-force to political pressure from community groups.
Those words will be useful in the debates ahead. I shall not forget them.
I return to the hon. Gentleman's views on road freight. Why, if road transport is cheaper and more efficient for the businesses that want to send freight, does the hon. Gentleman want to reduce road transport and restrain it with quantity controls? If it is the best form of freight transport, what is the point of imposing restrictions upon it?
I shall give Opposition Members the answer to both those questions. They see the railways and the buses as major nationalised employers. They see the employees, heavily unionised, as a political constituency for Labour. However, it has declined, as the hon. Gentleman admitted in his speech. That is what he is worried about. Opposition Members want to protect that, so they stoop to carping at freedom of choice for the traveller because they would rather put the operators before the travellers. They are not interested in providing new jobs by keeping industry's costs down and improving services to customers. They are interested only in preserving jobs, whatever the cost to the user, and whatever the long-term costs to the public transport network, the economy and jobs.
The motion complains about
competition, profit, privatisation and reduced Government financial support and inadequate investment".
I shall examine each in turn. First, I believe in competition. It is good for travellers, good for workers and good for taxpayers. I shall take aviation as an example. British Midland now flies from Heathrow to Glasgow, Edinburgh and Belfast with a better fares structure, improvements in frequency and a remarkable improvement in the standard of service. The result is that both British Airways and British Midland have reported significant increases in traffic—at least 10 per cent. That is the way to safeguard jobs. It has even made British Airways provide breakfast on its morning flights. British Air Ferries and Guernsey Airlines will soon start summer services between Jersey and Scotland. They are willing to compete. I see no reason to stop them.
We are carrying those principles into Europe, too. At the next Council of Ministers meeting I shall press for more competition in air services within Europe. I see no

reason why it should cost more to fly from London to Paris than from London to Glasgow. London to Paris is a shorter distance, yet the flight costs more. Why? Because there is no true competition such as that which has been introduced on the Scottish service. If more evidence of the efficacy of competition for airline business is needed, I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the traffic across the north Atlantic.
Let me also remind the House of the results of deregulation of the long-distance coach market. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East even carped at that because it was competition for the railways. The result has been more frequent services—700 new services were introduced between 1980 and 1983—a better quality of service and, above all, lower fares, which have fallen by some 40 per cent. in real terms on the major routes. Again, more passengers have been carried. This change has shown what competition does to help the traveller.
I believe in privatising transport concerns. It has dramatic effects. We have privatised some nationalised industries, thereby reducing the role of the Government. The ports and road haulage undertakings which the Government previously owned have both been sold, and both have since produced far better results in the private sector. Only recently the National Freight Company announced an increase in profits, turnover and investment for the first full year of its existence, and the operating profits of Associated British Ports were up by more than a quarter in its first year.
Last week we had a splendid sale of our remaining shares in ABP—at 2·4 times the price of the original sale only 14 months ago. That shows how an enterprise can thrive under competition in the private sector. British Airways is poised for sale in early 1985, Sealink UK Ltd. is being bid for now, Hoverspeed (UK) Ltd. is already in the private sector, and I am happy to tell the House that we shall have further plans for the privatisation of transport industries.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: What profits did British Airways make last year and the year before while publicly owned?

Mr. Ridley: I shall be able to give the hon. Gentleman the 1983 profit figures very soon—they are about to come out but—I do not have the 1982 figure in my head. However, he will find that there has been a dramatic transformation in the profitability of British Airways since Lord King started to prepare it for privatisation.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Is not the Secretary of State really saying that a change of management rather than a change of ownership has caused this?

Mr. Ridley: I am not saying that——

Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman just has.

Mr. Ridley: I did not. The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) said it. I do not believe that Lord King would have taken the job had he not been asked to take the company into the private sector. He is a professional manager who believes passionately that the only way to manage such a concern is in the private sector.
I am delighted with all this, and so are the customers and workers. National Freight Company worker-shareholders have seen their original shares go from £1 to the equivalent of £5·20, and ABP shares have gone from


£1·12 at initial purchase to £2·60 this morning on the stock market—a little bit more last week when that company was sold.
What makes the Opposition so unhappy about all this? I read in that extraordinary publication "Labour's Manifesto 1983" that:
Labour believes that, together with a properly enforced licensing system, a publicly-owned share of the road haulage industry is essential. It would clearly be sensible for the National Freight Company to form part of this sector; and we are examining how best to bring this about.
I also read in the TUC-Labour party liaison committee "Transport Policy" 1982:
There could be resistance amongst NFC employees to the re-nationalisation of their company. It is anticipated that the NFC should form part of a public sector approach to road haulage.
How is that from the party of workers? Is it still the Opposition's policy to renationalise the NFC? Would they take it into public ownership if ever they were to come back into government?

Mr. Prescott: We are quite prepared to say that we believe in a strong public ownership element in the national transportation sector of our lorry industries. As we have said, the NFC could be one of the candidates for consideration. There is no embarrassment in making that point. However, it is understandable that when people have shares in these industries their attitude may be affected if certain acation were taken, but that is the reality of looking at such problems.

Mr. Ridley: The NFC workers will not thank the hon. Gentleman for that. That is the quickest way of losing votes that ought to go to him. What about ABP, Sealink and British Airways? The employees who buy shares in those great undertakings, and who are looking forward to a more prosperous and successful time under private ownership, also want answers to those questions.

Mr. Stephen Ross: The right hon. Gentleman may have made a slip of the tongue, but is he quite certain that the employees of, say, Sealink will be given the chance to buy shares?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has not done his homework, or he would know that in deciding who should buy the company British Rail took particular account of whether the employee shares scheme was adequate.

Mr. Stephen Ross: That does not answer my question.

Mr. Ridley: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Peter Snape: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ridley: I have a lot more to say, and I have been interrupted for longer than I have been speaking, but I shall give way.

Mr. Snape: The right hon. Gentleman ought to reflect that that is probably a relief for the House. As he has encouraged us to intervene, may I ask him about his letter to the chairman of the British Railways Board on 24 October 1983, which referred specifically to Sealink? Incidentally, the right hon. Gentleman singularly failed to address himself to that point in reply to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). That letter stated:
Sealink must be made ready for privatisation as soon as possible".

There is nothing in it about shares for the employees.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has not read the invitation to bidders, and he should not come to the House without doing his homework. He will find that it is stipulated there.
I wish to discuss profits, which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East also seems to dislike. The Labour party cannot bear commercial success or profitability. Its whole ideology rests on the belief that the profit motive is evil, yet the NFC is an outstanding example of what private ownership, profitability and employee participation can achieve. The Labour party cannot countenance the idea that the profit motive is a force for progress. It would send the NFC back to the golden years of the mid-1970s, when it lost £31 million in 1975. There is no profit motive there.
The motion also refers to
reduced Government financial support and inadequate investment".
The private sector has been investing with great vigour, and I am amazed to see the Opposition motion trying to stop it. When I announced earlier this month the abolition of section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964, which has enabled Governments to stop investment in ports, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East had the temerity to table a motion — [Interruption.] — he signed a motion which said:
That this House … believes that such action will give the go ahead to a private company to construct a container terminal at Falmouth".
Does the hon. Gentleman want investment, or does he want me to stop it? Again it can be seen that the Labour party's policy is to look after the interests of the registered dock workers in Liverpool, London, Bristol, Southampton, Scotland and Hull, and not, I emphasise, those wishing to ship their goods and to export and import them. The Labour party is interested only in the transport workers, not the transport customers.
The Labour party screams for more investment in infrastructure, yet screams again when I take the restrictions off people wanting to invest in infrastructure. Private investment in ports, lorries, coaches, cars and aeroplanes has been booming, but the motion may be trying to sidestep that. The Opposition are interested only in public sector investment. I am happy to tell the Opposition what is happening to public sector investment.
Let us take the example of roads, which are crucial for industry and commerce. We have been reversing the massive cuts in capital spending which took place before we came to power. Under Labour, between 1975–76 and 1978–79, capital spending on trunk roads and motorways—which does not include maintenance expenditure—fell by 40 per cent.—more than £300 million in real terms. That was a 40 per cent. cut, yet the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has the audacity to criticise the Government's record on roads.
We decided to gear the programme up again. It could not be done all at once, but there have been some healthy increases since. In 1982–83 capital spending on trunk roads was more than 20 per cent. higher in constant price terms than in the last year of the Labour Government. This year we shall see a 13 per cent. cash increase, about another 6 per cent.in constant price terms, on road spending.
We are also fulfilling our responsibilities on local authority road maintenance. We have accepted for


transport supplementary grant nearly £900 million this year — 8 per cent. up on last year — and we have accepted a local capital spending programme of £647 million, 4·5 per cent. up, which will enable local authorities to keep up with work on new bypasses and urban relief roads.
Such roads are important not only for passengers but for freight. Transport and transport infrastructure play a central role in the economy, and if we want to see growth and regeneration I suggest that we concentrate more on making life possible for industry. The philosophy of responding to demand applies just as much to freight transport as to passengers, and jobs and prosperity depend on it just as much.
This expenditure, by central and local government, all helps to take heavy traffic out of towns and villages and residential areas. We have opened 42 trunk road bypasses and about 30 more should be completed in the next couple of years—that is trunk road bypasses only.
While we must have the roads, we are equally determined to reduce the effect of heavy traffic on the environment where people live. The two aims of good roads and less nuisance from traffic are compatible. We have made a much better fist of reconciling them than did our predecessors.
We hear a lot about railways from the Opposition, and the terrible restraints on their investment, as we did this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman seems to have a bee in his bonnet about railway investment. I advise him to get an apiarist to help get rid of it. It is not true, I am afraid. Since we took office, BR has invested almost £2 billion at present-day prices. In addition, it is spending £100 million per year on replacing old track with continuous welded rail.
I have made it quite clear that my policy is to support all worthwhile investment. That is why we have approved electrification to Cambridge, to Ipswich, Norwich and Harwich and to Hastings. That is why we have approved major signalling projects—for example schemes worth £20 million in Leeds, and £28 million for the west of England. That is why in the past six months we have approved new rolling stock—some 400 vehicles—worth some £85 million. That is why the board envisages an increase in investment of about 40 per cent. by 1986. I hope that the Opposition will not talk too often about railways starved of investment. They are chasing an illusion.
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has read the White Paper on transport issued by his own Government in 1977. If he has not, I urge him to do so. It is, of course, defective in parts, but there is a lot of wisdom in it. For example, on page 3 we are told:
The objectives — of investment in transport to support industrial recovery and the provision of adequate public transport — have both to be met from the resources we can afford. More for one means less for another … those who wish to see a significant increase in transport expenditure have a duty to say where the additional money should come from.
I ask the hon. Gentleman: where should the additional money come from, particularly as British Rail has not been denied any worthwhile investment that it has suggested, as the hon. Gentleman knows?
British Rail now at last has clear objectives to go with its financial target. When I wrote to the chairman last autumn I made it clear that I did not want a programme of major route closures. What is needed is a modern, efficient railway at a low cost to the taxpayer. This

depends above all on a willingness to provide a service that customers really want, and the same goes for all transport enterprises. That is the real way to a secure future.
The railways are responding. I congratulate British Rail on its very encouraging results for 1983. It has turned a large loss into a small token profit of £8 million, for the first time. Let me quote from the annual report:
In 1983, British Rail demonstrated that a combination of firm management and sound business principles can, with the co-operation of a committed workforce, turn a previous year loss of £175 million into a small but, in terms of the morale of the industry, significant surplus of £8 million.
Now that a lot more work has been done, the Board is confident, provided railway operations remain reliable. that BR will move close to the objective of a faster reduction in support.
Finally, in perhaps the most telling of the points made, and one which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East should remember, the chairman says:
Years of practical experience as a railway manager, rather than any particular view of transport policy, have convinced me that the less dependent an industry is on any source other than the paying customer, the more efficiently it will run. The way to prosper in any business is to satisfy the customer by giving value for money.
Those are salutary words, from which I hope Opposition spokesmen will learn one day.
When it comes to what the motion calls "Government financial support"—which means extracting money front the taxpayers—it must not be forgotten that the railways PSO grant at £855 million, with another £78 million from the local authorities—a total of £933 million for 1983—is an enormous sum of money.
I recognise that public transport needs support. The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that they think the more the better. We want value for money. Comparisons with France or Germany are very favourable to us—for once we seem to be doing better than they are, because we have to use very much less support.
The Opposition measure everything by how much of other people's money is spent on it. I should hate to take the hon. Gentleman out to a restaurant for dinner at my expense. He would only look at the menu to see what item was the most expensive. If we can run public transport at less subsidy than other countries can, it is a success story, not a failure. I never understand why, in Labour mythology, any cut in subsidy must be a cut in services.Will the Labour party ever understand that it is possible to save subsidy by cutting out inefficiency, by modernisation and competition?
Let us take the example of bus subsidies in the big cities. Some local authorities have been frankly extravagant, and I make no apology for the fact that the protected expenditure levels that I set for 1984–85 were below what the GLC and metropolitan counties wanted, but I am still protecting nearly £500 million of subsidies. That figure is higher than I would ultimately wish. It is also higher in real terms than the Labour Government anticipated in their 1977 transport White Paper. Their commitment to maintain support in real terms at £150 million a year would translate to about £300 million at today's prices. However, there must be constraints on the rate of reduction, to avoid disruption.
What I do not recognise is the claim that fares must be kept down for the sake of it. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East quoted a headline from an article in The Standard—I hope that he read the article—when I said nothing new; only that fares in London would stay


roughly in line with inflation. That is not putting fares up. That is real-term fares staying level, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.
Perhaps there is less between the two Front Benches than there seems. I remember 1977–78, when South Yorkshire refused to cut its spending plans. It would have received £4 million in transport supplementary grant. Instead, it got £291,000. But that was in the days when Labour Government transport White Papers explained:
Public expenditure will be limited for many years to come, and investment to support economic recovery must not be hampered by allowing too high a proportion to be pre-empted … Subsidy should be paid only when there is a clear requirement for it to meet social needs in transport that would not otherwise be met.
I reject that part of the motion which criticises "reduced Government support."

Mr. Stan Crowther: Before the Secretary of State leaves that, he will recall that the Secretary of State for Transport who imposed that £4 million fine on the South Yorkshire county council is now no longer a member of the Labour party, but is a member of the Social Democratic party.

Mr. Ridley: I do not know whether that is praising or damning him.
It is more in the nature of a pay claim than a serious debating point. There is a very clear need to bring bus subsidies under control. At present they are consuming some £930 million of taxpayers' and ratepayers' money—joy for the Labour party but not, alas, for those who have to pay it. If Labour Members ever want to win an election, they must one day begin to think of the taxpayers and ratepayers. They are voters, too. They are the majority of our people.
The Labour party goes on a lot about rural bus services. Yes, they have been reduced, but that is because the customers of the bus industry are reducing at the rate of 3·5 per cent. a year. Rural bus services have declined inexorably since the 1950s, under Governments of both colours. Since 1978 rural bus mileage has declined by some 2 per cent. per annum, and passengers by some 4 per cent. per annum. That means that there is a better service.
I believe that Labour Members should look at the innovative ideas on rural transport that are happening in some of the counties — [Interruption.] I must tell the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that if the decline in the number of services is 2 per cent. per annum, and the decline in the number of passengers is 4 per cent. per annum, there are more services per passenger at the end of the day.

Mr. Donald Anderson: How can it possibly be a better service for a pensioner in a village which is perhaps more isolated than it has been for a century as a result of Government cuts in bus services? How can that be a success story?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman must know that the Government do not make cuts in bus services. It is the county councils which are responsible for bus services. The county councils must use what resources they think fit to help those who need the transport.
I was saying that Labour Members would be well advised to look at some of the innovative ideas on rural transport in some of the counties. I know that it is

exceptional, but in my constituency there is a service called the villager bus, which is a minibus sevice run by retired people who offer their services free one day a week to take people to and from the towns. It is a great success. It takes all the pensioners to the shops. In Hereford and Worcester—one of the trial areas—by deregulating and seeking tenders for uneconomic routes, the county has made real savings in subsidy, and passengers have seen lower fares as well as better services. There are also interesting experiments in Sussex, Devon and Norfolk.
There is one other matter to which I must refer, and that is shipping. The Opposition motion is ridiculous and fails to address itself to the real problem facing this very important industry. It is not "privatisation and competition" that has reduced the British merchant fleet. There has been no change from the last Administration's policy of keeping our fleet privately owned and seeking to combat protectionism wherever it occurred round the world. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East talked about my ideological obsession with competition and privatisation. I have made no change from the type of policy that the last Administration followed. The only ships to be privatised are those of Sealink, and they have not been privatised yet. The motion is absolute rubbish.
I accept that the United Kingdom's merchant fleet has declined substantially since its peak in 1975. This is due to a combination of factors—the substantially higher investment in preceding years, world recession, oversupply of vessels brought about by massive world shipbuilding subsidies, and competition from emergent nations which see a shipping industry as a national must. But we still have a large fleet and one that continues to depend critically on cross-trading and therefore on open shipping markets. It is in our shipping and our trade interests to keep those markets open; otherwise our fleet will be considerably smaller than it is today and our exports will be less competitive. As the president of the General Council of British Shipping said in a speech last year, the Labour party's naive belief in protectionism and nationalisation meant that
we would see emerge another inefficient, expensive state corporation surviving on a drip feed of taxpayers' money.
That is what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East wants.
I have pulled the Opposition motion to pieces limb by limb. There is nothing left of it but a naked desire to soak the taxpayers for the benefit of the transport operators. Nowhere does it even mention the traveller or the sender of goods. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) represent respectively the NUS and the NUR. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East made that clear.
I ask the House to accept the Government amendment and to reject the motion.

Mr. Ron Lewis: As is the custom, I begin by declaring my interest as an hon. Member sponsored by the National Union of Railwaymen. It is on the railways that I intend to concentrate what I have to say in this very important debate.
Despite all that we have just heard from the Secretary of State, the Government's approach to the railways and to transport in general has been scandalous. The Prime Minister, who is not here, attaches such little importance


to the subject that she appoints Secretaries of State for Tranport and then discards them with bewildering frequency. Often it is difficult to remember who holds office at any one time. If a straw poll were taken of the ordinary man in the street to name the present Secretary of State, I doubt whether eight out of 10 would know.
It is no wonder that transport policy is inconsistent. It is no wonder that the pro-road bias of Department of Transport officials has not been kept in check and that the morale of loyal dedicated workers is at rock bottom.
Last autumn there was a moment of hope. The Government spent most of the summer looking for a hatchetman to take over from Sir Peter Parker as chairman of the British Railways Board. What a pity it was for the Prime Minister that it was impossible for Mr. MacGregor to make a reality of the triple alliance by becoming chairman of the steel, coal and railways industries simultaneously, but in the end she grudgingly accepted Mr. Bob Reid.
I have a reasonable regard for Mr. Reid's management ability. He has the advantage of being a career railwayman who knows the industry inside out. I support a few of his objectives, not least his determination to maintain the rail network at its present size. However, some questions must be answered about that commitment. I quarrel with Mr. Bob Reid about his apparent belief that by keeping quiet and not upsetting the Government or the Secretary of State for Transport, by not allowing local management to press the railways' case with their Members of Parliament or even local authorities, he will achieve the investment and revenue support needed to modernise the railway and to make it attractive for customers.
No sensible person would disagree with aiming to give value for money, but the BRB must recognise that there are ways of measuring values other than by concentrating on how much industry is costing the taxpayer. Is it value for money to drive away passengers by continually putting up fares or even by cutting out trains, as will happen when the new timetables are operated from 8 May, if the effect is to force people back to their cars and on to congested roads? Is it value for money to close down one local freight depot after another if that transfers more consignments to dirty, dangerous, over-laden lorries? Of course it is not, but that is what the Department of Transport means by value for money. I am afraid that Mr. Reid appears to be falling for it.
The Under-Secretary has told us many times that the Serpell report has been shelved and that the infamous network options were only illustrations, which were not to be taken seriously. We are told that there is such a cosy relationship between the Secretary of State and his officials and Mr. Reid and the BRB that the railways, like the Health Service, are safe in Government hands. The railwaymen do not think that that is true.
Is it not surprising that the cost savings identified in the Serpell report bear more than a passing resemblance to the new objectives set for the BRB by the Secretary of State, that the decision has already been taken to put out to tender all major orders for railway equipment in line with what Serpell said? Is it not surprising that the option of privatising British Rail Engineering Ltd.—selling it off, closing most of its workshops and sacking most of the staff —is still being considered, according to the chairman of BREL, Mr. James Urquhart, whom some of us remember from when he appeared on television during the ASLEF strike a couple of years ago?

What about the mystery of bus substitution—closing rural railways and trying to persuade someone to provide a bus service? If Serpell is dead, that idea should have died with it, but a commitment to some bus substitution was part of the BR chairman's objectives.
No one at BRB will say which lines are being considered, or whether the substitution will be a genuine experiment so as to allow the trains to run again if the bus service is not a success. No one will say who will run the buses. It is hard to see the National Bus Company doing a deal with BR, because its main interest is now to smash as much of the railway inter-city business as it can with its under-taxed, often illegally driven, long-distance coaches.
Has that much changed since the dark days of Serpell? Has the influence of the railways' enemies on Government thinking disappeared? What is Professor Walters saying about railway electrification now, bearing in mind that he torpedoed it last time round? Where is his friend, Mr. Alfred Goldstein, who did everyone a good turn by carrying his anti-rail bias on the Serpell committee to absurdity?
What about the other Alf, Sir Alfred Sherman, who sat on a British Rail inquiry into converting railways into roads — the most pointless study of all time — while taking money from the National Bus Company as a consultant on the same subject, an interest which he never voluntarily declared to the BRB chairman?
Previously, Prime Ministers have been criticised for their choice of friends, but the hangers-on at Queen Margaret's court are as bad as any who went before them. The refrain that we hear from Ministers whenever we criticise the Government is, "There is no alternative " In virtually all areas of policy that is a blatant untruth, especially in relation to transport.
I commend to the House an excellent publication by Transport 2000, the environmental organisation which commands intelligent support across the political spectrum. It has demonstrated conclusively time and again that a high-investment, low-fares strategy makes good sense. That approach has been followed by almost all the railways in Europe in recent years. France, despite having invested heavily in the train de grande vitesse, is still committing itself to about one and three quarter times as much railway investment over the next three years. West Germany, even with a right-wing Government, will be investing nearly three times as much as the United Kingdom.
Main line electrification lies at the heart of BR's needs. The House must not be satisfied with the Secretary of State smugly sitting back saying that he is waiting for BR to jump through yet more hoops.

Mr. Gregory: rose——

Mr. Lewis: Now we are dealing with the so-called viability of the inter-city sector; previously there had to be a line-by-line analysis; and before that, the network had to be viewed as a whole. The Government are not just moving goal posts at half-time; they are saying that in the second half the game must be played with a differently shaped ball and to different rules.
In addition to being lectured on value for money, the House is lectured about the virtues of so-called competition. When will we have a fair competitive framework in transport? When will the Secretary of State


make heavy lorries pay for the damage they do, not just in terms of track costs—the juggernauts are still not paying their fair share of those costs—but in terms of environmental damage, pollution, noise, filth, accidents, policing, regulation enforcement and the destruction of buildings and bridges? How is it that we can cheerfully — I am not quarreling with this point — pay up for repairs to the Severn bridge, which are necessary solely because of the volume and weight of road haulage vehicles, yet deny BR relatively tiny sums for repairs to the Ribblehead viaduct on the Carlisle-to-Settle line and for a swing bridge at Goole on an important line between Doncaster and Hull?
How can the competition be fair when the road-building fanatics in the Department of Transport justify questionable motorway schemes on the basis of a shaky cost-benefit analysis, when railway investment is subject to the far harsher disciplines of Treasury rates of return?

Mr. Gregory: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lewis: I am coming to a conclusion. The hon. Gentleman can make his point if he catches the eye of the Chair.
Within the past few weeks, Professor Philip Bagwell has published a book, "End of the Line? The Fate of British Railways under Thatcher". The concluding paragraph on page 180 states:
The millions of people who use buses or trains each day have an interest in seeing public transport services maintained and improved. The 'core of the matter' today is that the nation 'must will the means' to sustain a level of public transport services which will meet their needs.
Transport is an area of policy in which Britain is out of step with the rest of the civilised world. Governments, not just in Europe but in the far east, North and South America, Australia and many other areas, are appreciating the benefits of large-scale railway investment. I suggest to the Secretary of State and the Government that now is the time for them to change course.

Mr. Terence Higgins: It is a good thing that we are debating transport in broad terms. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) pointed out, this is the first time since 1977 that we have had such a debate. It is curious that the Opposition have chosen one of their days to hold this debate at a time when many of the results of the railway and road building programmes are going remarkably well. Clearly, there is still room for improvement.
I welcome the structural change in the machinery of government that enables the Department of Transport to cover air and shipping transport as well as roads and rail. That is an improvement, but it is difficult to speak in a general debate because one must cover an enormous range of subjects. I suspect that it is easier to do that from the Front Benches than from the Back Benches.
I shall take up some of the points made in earlier speeches and set out a shopping list of matters that the Government can improve. I shall deal with each of the main transport areas briefly, but I have a general point affecting the railways and the roads involving those commuting into London. We suffer from a severe peak hours problem because of the working hours in London.

The need for capital and the congestion on the roads are exacerbated by the peak problem. No Government of any party have made any serious attempt to stagger working hours so that less capital investment on the railways is needed and less congestion occurs on the roads. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in conjunction with other Departments, will pay some attention to that matter, because a great deal must be done.
It is extraordinary to compare the statements of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) and those writing the type of heavy book to which he referred running down the railways all the time with the results reported a few days ago in The Times. The first paragraph stated:
British Rail emerged from years of gloom yesterday with record profits, after subsidy, and an optimistic view of the future. The railways achieved a group surplus of £8m last year, after a £175m loss in strike-torn 1982, and a £62m operating profit, the highest since BR was formed 22 years ago.
That contrasts with the points made by the hon. Member for Carlisle.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: How were those figures achieved? How many assets were sold off?

Mr. Higgins: That is something to do not with asset sales, but with operating profits. One must take the operating profits as a whole. Much can be said also for the degree of divestment.
There must be a team effort. I take up the point made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about investment in BR. We all know of the scandal of the Bedford-St. Pancras line. A vast investment was made and for a considerable period equipment lay idle. Only if we achieve flexibility on the industrial relations side can we justify to our constituents the investments in BR that we would all like to see. My right hon. Friend has responded rapidly and constructively, given the improvements after a strike-torn 1982 and the trauma involved. The Serpell report, to which the hon. Member for Carlisle referred, was unfortunate in many respects, but it is wrong for the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, to quote selectively and out of context the changes proposed in the timetable for the southern region. The rail network is not being cut, as Serpell suggested. This afternoon my right hon. Friend gave an assurance to that effect. Certainly, in my constituency substantial sums have been invested in signalling on the Victoria to Brighton line. It is not true to say that the railways are not getting Government support.
I cannot envisage any future for transporting coal, if, as the National Union of Mineworkers wants, we continue to subsidise coal mines that will never be economic at any level of energy cost. The union should encourage the closure of uneconomic pits in the hope that more investment can be made in the coal industry, so that total coal production and the amount of business for British Rail can be correspondingly increased. It is not in the interests of the rail industry to support Mr. Scargill in his backward-looking approach.
Following the road congestion during the holiday weekend, it is clear that Britain has become a car-owning democracy. That creates a number of problems. The Government have implemented a substantial road-building programme. However, I am worried that future opportunities to increase the programme may be frustrated because of the delay in the preparation of road projects.


A recent NEDC report suggested that the average time for preparing a major road programme was 10 years. I hope that, rather than spending all the available money immediately on building certain roads, my right hon. Friend will devote a considerable amount to carrying through the planning and preparation arrangements. Should the economic position allow us to move ahead faster than expected, it will be necessary for the planning to have been completed. That point should be noted in the general context of the combination between road and rail programmes.
Although more bypasses are being built, we are not undertaking the large bypasses that are needed, such as one around Worthing. The bypass planned by the Labour Government would have gone straight through the cente of Worthing. That was not a good idea. It took me 10 years to stop that absurd proposal. I hope that it will not take me another 10 years to obtain plans for a suitable bypass around the town.
There is not sufficient co-ordination on road maintenance. The cones on every motorway are clearly breeding at an enormous rate. All too often there are hold-ups because of cones that could have been removed for substantial periods, especially during weekends. Such delays are quite unnecessary. I hope that the Department will consider whether improvements can be made to ensure that roads are not unnecessarily coned, especially when traffic is heavy.
I wish to make three brief points about the relationship between the Department and other Departments, especially with the Home Office and local authorities. Existing legislation is not being enforced adequately. For example, the 38-tonne limit for heavy lorries approved by the House is not being enforced. Many hon. Members have been concerned about the suggestion that it does not matter if lorries are 5 or 10 per cent. over the limit. I welcome the reply given to me by my right hon. Friend that he is devoting more resources to ensuring that the law is properly enforced. Having said that the limit is 38 tonnes, nothing above it should be allowed.
Secondly, the law about lighting on pedal cycles is not being enforced. More than 50 per cent.—possibly 75 per cent.—of cycles in central London at night do not have lights. The police clearly make no attempt to enforce the law. I hope that my right hon. Friend, perhaps through an advertising campaign, will ensure that the law is observed so that that dangerous practice ceases.
Thirdly, the 70 mph speed limit on motorways is not being enforced. We should encourage the police to enforce the limit, and not accept the suggestion that it should be increased because it cannot be enforced. If we cannot enforce the current limit, we certainly cannot enforce a higher limit because of the problems of catching offenders.
My right hon. Friend, in his concluding remarks, referred to shipping and extolled the virtues of competition. That sits a little uneasily with the support that the Government have given to the UNCTAD liner code provisions, which we debated during the last Parliament. I hope that my right hon. Friend will carefully consider whether that is in the interests of British shippers and shipowners.
My right hon. Friend also referred to the international trade in shipping and the fluctuations in that. Britain operates in a competitive market and there is little we can do about that other than to discourage other countries from adopting unfair practices. The provisions in the Budget on

capital allowances and free depreciation are causing concern in the industry. In general, I entirely support my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's proposals, but the shipping industry, subject as it is to substantial fluctuations, needs other arrangements. The profits in shipping fluctuate to a considerable extent. I hope that my right hon. Friend and the Chancellor will discuss that matter and take account of the representations being made by the shipping industry. I hope that they will ensure that those operating in the industry — who are also determined to ensure that competition prevails and that the industry is efficient—do not find themselves unjustifiably penalised in one of the few areas where it is possible for the Government to make reasonable arrangements.
I fully support the idea of competition. My right hon. Friend rightly stressed the importance of transport being for passengers and those who transport goods. However, in some areas there is a real danger of establishing a private monopoly in the place of a public monopoly. Insufficient attention has been paid to the regulatory procedures that may be necessary to ensure competition once assets have moved from the public to the private sector. A monopoly in the private sector is no better than a monopoly in the public sector. Therefore, while I support the proposals for privatisation and hope that competition will be maintained, we must ensure that the benefits of competition and privatisation are obtained by those for whom the transport industry works—the consumer and those who wish to transport goods by whatever means of transport are available.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I agree with several of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). I agree especially with his remarks, at the conclusion of his speech, about the merchant shipping fleet. I hope that the Secretary of State's views will not continue to represent those of his Department. I know that the Minister who is to reply to the debate has the responsibility for shipping. I suspect that he has recently seen a delegation from the Maritime League. The whole nation should be concerned at what has happened to our merchant fleet. We cannot go on trying to pretend that it is all part of competition and that we have to live with it. I do not think that the Secretary of State for Defence believes that we can live with it.
I found the Secretary of State's speech totally complacent. It is tragic that the Government, with their huge majority, have not had the courage to tackle the real problems of pollution, congested roads, and too many private cars and heavy lorries in our town and city centres at peak times. The right hon. Member for Worthing suggested that we should be more determined about flexible hours of working. I do not think that we are likely to make much more progress in this respect than we have already. If the Government were to bring in regulations concerning the use of private cars in inner city areas, no doubt they would be unpopular for a time—certainly we should get the heavy lorries out of city centres as soon as possible and on to principal routes—but I think that after a while the public would come to appreciate the great improvement in the quality of everyday life and the greater freedom of movement. A really effective integrated public transport system could bring that about.
I know that today is Anzac day, and it is right that Whitehall should have been closed, but the traffic round


Parliament square was chaotic. That sort of chaos happens far too often in our cities. For example, mornings and evenings it takes at least half an hour to grind one's way into and out of the centre of Portsmouth. That position, which is repeated in every town and city in the country, will get worse and worse. Some Government—it should be this one—must tackle the problem.
A recent investigation showed that the average speed of traffic in the inner city areas of Britain—I understand that the position is similar in other European countries—is exactly the same now as it was 20 years ago. The average speed is about 8 kph. All the so-called improvements, the upheaval and loss of amenity have succeeded only in holding the position. Hon. Members may say that it could not have been held if those actions had not been taken. That is possibly an example of the market-type economics which appeal to the Secretary of State. He seemed to be eulogising them in his speech.
The marvel of car travel is not some independent absolute to which we are all constrained to bend our wills and our policy. People's preference for cars is relative to other forms of transport. As other forms of transport change, so will their perception of car use. If public transport improves, people will use it more and cars less. That has happened in London, much though it apparently grieves the Secretary of State. It has also happened in Sheffield and Plymouth. Through the new fares policy it is happening in Oxford, and in Tyne and Wear as a result of imaginative traffic management schemes.
I understand that the latest statistics for the travelcard scheme in London, introduced last May, show a drop of 10 per cent. in car commuting. In Newcastle, 7 per cent. of the passengers on the new metro used to travel by car. It is clear that there have been improvements. I picked those examples almost at random; there are others. Unfortunately, they are now all at risk because of the nationalisation of London Transport, the abolition of the metropolitan counties, rate-capping, and the apparently imminent deregulation of local bus services.

Mr. Matthew Parris: Is not the hon. Gentleman's figure for Tyne and Wear a worrying indictment of the argument in support of which he quoted it? If, after the huge expense of building the Tyne and Wear transport system, it has succeeded in capturing no more than 7 per cent. of people who used to travel by car, is that really an argument in support of the hon. Gentleman's contention?

Mr. Ross: It certainly is, because the metro has only just been extended, and I hope that it will be extended still further. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that it also means that there is 7 per cent. less traffic in the inner city area.
I am suggesting that it will be necessary to introduce regulations, but it is no use introducing regulations or a price system to prevent cars from coming into the inner city area unless a proper public transport infrastructure has already been provided. I believe that the authority was right in going ahead as it did, and I hope that the figures in the future will show even further use of the public transport system.
While it would be niggardly not to congratulate the British Railways Board on its much improved financial position — Sir Peter Parker should take some of the

credit for that—it must be recognised that it has been achieved by substantial sales of assets, by further substantial cuts in staff — 6,000 have gone and it is planned to get rid of another 15,000—and by higher fares and shorter trains. In the south of England we are suffering considerably from the introduction of shorter trains. There have also been delays in replacement and reductions in maintenance standards, and they do not give us much confidence for the future.
In 1982, compared with investment in railways in Italy, West Germany, France, Holland and Sweden, investment in British Rail was still lower in real terms. In fact, since 1976, investment in British Rail has fallen by 68 per cent. in real terms. That consistent decline is unique among the railway systems that I have quoted.
At least 12 shire counties plan to spend less than one halfpenny per person per day on bus and train revenue support in 1984–85. As a county councillor, I know that they are forced into that position because of the various penalties imposed upon them.
If the Government relax the bus licensing system, the private operators will come in and take over the most remunerative routes, and then public bus operators will be unable to continue to cross-subsidise loss-making rural services. That point was made to me only yesterday by the general manager of Southern Vectis in my area. He asked me what the Government's plans were likely to be. I appreciate that the Minister happens to know the Isle of Wight. In the Isle of Wight the only routes which pay are those running between the main towns, such as Cowes, Newport, Ryde and Shanklin. Those are the routes that would interest competitors. They would not be interested in taking over the rural routes on which we have managed to maintain a reasonable service up to now.
Recently a young gentleman sought to set up a rural bus service in the Isle of Wight and we all encouraged him—indeed, the Vectis bus company actively helped him — but he lasted only three months before going bankrupt. I do not believe that the possibility of competition in the rural areas is anything like what some Conservative Members believe it to be.
In 1984 British Rail had the lowest proportion of its network electrified in the whole of the six countries with which it was compared by Transport 2000. Chapter 8 of that document is particularly pessimistic when it states that the continental European rail network is developing all the time, and by comparison British Rail is being left behind in terms of technology and its ability to meet changing demand.
Why has permission not been given for the east coast main line to be electrified? I am amazed that it has been delayed for so many years. The St. Pancras to Sheffield line is a further example, and there are many others.
At least the idea of converting rail into road has been shown to be the non-starter that we all expected it would be. However, according to press reports a week ago, Sir Alfred Sherman wants to see double-decker coaches going into Marylebone. Yet, according to the report in which he played some part, the tunnel size limitation would not permit anything larger than a single-decker bus to get through. Sir Alfred seems to be allowed to get hold of public money and to carry out all sorts of investigations, and one wonders when he will be stopped. Are not our roads and motorways already full enough? As we all know, there are constant traffic jams, and on our radios


every morning we hear of the latest hold-up, with single-line working on the MI or the M5. Serious accidents are taking place and there are constant repairs to roads.
I accept that there is a case for a north London coach terminal to relieve Victoria, which is not only full to overflowing, but dangerous. I do not suppose that many hon. Members use the Victoria coach station, but I use it, and my wife used it only yesterday. It may be that Marylebone could provide one of the answers, but why not have rail and coach integrated terminals? Is there not a case for that at Marylebone? Does Marylebone have to shut? We should consider the possibility of an integrated terminal.

Mr. Snape: With regard to Sir Alfred Sherman and his plans for Victoria coach station, I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that Sir Alfred Sherman lives in Gerald street. The coaches to and from Victoria coach station pass the end of the street. That infuriates him and makes him even more determined to proceed with his scheme to turn Marylebone into a coach station.

Mr. Ross: I understand that recently Sir Alfred went on a trip to South America. It would be better for all of us if he were to go back there.
Developments of the Bristol parkway type would surely be possible in some of the outer areas of London. The possibilities of rail and coach interchange should certainly be actively pursued particularly at our regional airports.
As I have said before—in terms that I was obliged to withdraw—I believe that the London Regional Transport Bill is a step back to the past. Mersey rail, the Tyne and Wear metro and the west midlands system are all examples of sensible, forward-looking public transport systems. What is to be their future? Are there to be more nationalised bodies without the directly elected representatives who know and can respond to the interests of their constituents, as those of us with local government experience know so well? Public transport must continue to be administered and organised on a regional basis.
The most imaginative investment in rail engineering now would be a firm commitment to build a Channel tunnel. Dare we hope that agreement to proceed may be reached before this year is out and the work actually put in hand?
The final part of my speech concerns the privatisation of Sealink. I apologise to the Minister for having to call off my Adjournment debate on this—due to sciatica, not seasickness! When my colleague Lord Winstanley was a Member of this House, he once said that he welcomed interventions as he had gout and wanted to sit down as much as possible. I felt like making the opposite request and asking hon. Members not to intervene because I could not sit down.
Sealink is vital to my constituents. Under British Rail management it has served the Isle of Wight well, although the cost of the cross-Solent services is a source of constant complaint, especially from private car owners, as the return fare for a medium-sized car with driver and two passengers is about £30 in the high season. Up to 30 September 1983, Sealink took 70 per cent. of the 6·37 million passenger movements, including 78 per cent. of car movements and 70 per cent. of commercial vehicle movements, and it has recently completed capital schemes totalling £18 million. As the Minister knows, that total would have been greater if he had not spoken to one of the

engineers on the boats serving the Ryde-Portsmouth route, with the result that replacement of those ships has not been permitted by the Government. Despite the engineer's pride in his engines, those vessels were built in 1948 and are reaching the end of their days.
I accept that if the Government are determined to privatise Sealink we shall have to go through with it. Indeed, I accept that a case can be made for it in some respects, as "Holiday Which?" has recently shown. I see no point in opposing privatisation for the sake of opposing it, but I am extremely concerned about the outcome. The ultimate decision is, of course, that of the Secretary of State and not of the British Railways Board. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission has already ruled out the possibility of a takeover by European Ferries.
The same objection must apply to P and O. If does not, I wish to make a personal comment. I understand that the chairman of P and O is industrial adviser to the Secretary of State for Industry. Will he stand down if P and O decides to put in a bid? Trafalgar House is scarcely renowned for patriotism and has little experience in ferry operation. It is all very well having an open door to No. 10 Downing street, but I trust that on this occasion saner counsels will prevail. Sea Containers Ltd. is in a similar position. It does not operate ferries and I understand that it is not under British control. I believe that the company is based in Bermuda.
I therefore greatly favour the idea of the present National Freight Consortium taking control, provided that the work force has every opportunity to participate, preferably in more than 20 per cent. of the equity. That is good Liberal policy and that is why I like it. I entirely agree with the structure of the National Freight Corporation. It has been a great success and it is marvellous that 2,000 shareholders turned up for the recent annual meeting at Wembley. One member of the consortium — James Fisher — is shown in Lloyd's shipping register as having an interest in Red Funnel at Southampton, which is the main opposition for the cross-Solent route. I understand, however, that it has disposed of that interest and that James Fisher now has no financial interest in any cross-Solent route.
Although not all Sealink ships have been built in United Kingdom yards, the vast majority are of British construction. The cross-Channel RO-ROs were built by Harland and Wolff, albeit a little later than scheduled. The latest cross-Solent ferries—the St. Catherine and the St. Helen—were built by Robb Caledon at Leith. It is a tragedy that that yard had to close, but those last two ships are a credit to its work force. It is important that whoever takes over the service employs British yards to build its ships. Sealink provided one of the ferries to go to the Falkland Islands. Such a facility might not be available if companies had their ships built and registered overseas.
For the Isle of Wight and doubtless for other routes, especially the Channel routes, it is essential that there should be continued co-operation with British Rail with through bookings, maintenance of piers such as that at Ryde, and so on. Another example is Portsmouth harbour. There must be close co-operation to avoid major maintenance problems. We must be assured of a service at least as good as that which we now enjoy. It may be costly, but it is an excellent service, running hourly and even half-hourly in the season. Will a new owner continue to run a ferry with only 10 cars at 10.30 pm when the vessel can take up to 150 cars? Will he not cancel and


make them wait for the 11.30 pm sailing? To its credit, Sealink does not behave in that way, but we must have similar assurances about any successor company. The services are profitable and can no doubt be made more so, but we must have answers to these important questions.
We also need continual experimentation with fare structures and concessions for industry and commerce, the disabled and pensioners. Concessions to industry and commerce are essential if anyone is to manufacture on the Isle of Wight, as it costs between £60 and £150 to take a lorry there and back. It is not an assisted area, but there are some major industries in my constituency. The middle wings of Short's 330s and 360s are built in the Isle of Wight and taken across to Northern Ireland. Plessey and many other companies are also vital to our economy. The 40,000 to 50,000 island-registered vehicles enjoy a reduction of 25 to 30 per cent. in ferry tariffs according to the season. Will that continue? We certainly expect that it should. I cite the example of Wellworthy's of Lymington. Many years ago British Rail made a concession for the work force of that company using the night ferries. No doubt Britsh Rail regrets that concession, but will a successor company continue it?
I am sorry to raise constituency matters, but the bids are out and we must seek protection now. The Secretary of State spoke as though everything was provided for by British Rail, there would be worker participation with the ability to buy shares, and so on. In fact, it is extremely difficult to get hold of a prospectus for the sale of Sealink. It is in the hands of the merchant bankers Morgan Grenfell and Co. Ltd. When I asked the chairman of Sealink for a copy, it was refused, so I do not know what is in the prospectus. Perhaps the Minister will reassure us. My local authority is thinking of applying but cannot honestly say that it is likely to submit a bid to acquire the company, and probably will not obtain it.
I hope that the Minister will give proper consideration to all these matters when the decisions are made. I cannot support the Government amendment, which is unbelievably naive, but I support virtually every word of the Opposition motion, although it could have been worded a little better. As the alliance amendment cannot be called, I shall vote with the Opposition.

Mr. Matthew Parris: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not here, I shall be mischievous and say that I am intrigued by his argument that as rural bus services are not being withdrawn as fast as the passengers are disappearing, the quality of the service is getting better. I am reminded of a bus conductress whom I once encountered on a No. 77 bus, who by the use of her little bell prompted the driver to pass a bus stop where three people were waiting. When one of the passengers on the bus asked her whether she had not seen the people waiting at the bus stop—she must have been something of a wag and an economist — she replied, "London Transport loses 10p for every passenger who is picked up. I have just saved London Transport 30p." The Minister's reasoning seems to be similar to hers.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) started his speech by saying that it is the Government's deliberate policy to increase transport unemployment. The Government's deliberate policy is to

increase productivity in public transport. If we can reduce the number of people needed to provide a service, we can give passengers an equally good service at a lower cost. Passengers, taxpayers and ratepayers will benefit from that, because it will be possible to reduce the subsidy. I agree with the Minister that although the Government must have a good deal of concern for those who are employed in public transport, our first concern is for the passengers. Public transport does not exist primarily for the benefit of those whom it employs. Primarily, it exists for the benefit of the passengers.
The hon. Gentleman complained that, under the Conservative Government, revenue support for local bus services had increased. Elsewhere in his speech, however, he complained that in various areas of public transport, Government subsidy had been reduced. On the whole, he regards an increase in subsidy as evidence of Government benevolence. He cannot have it both ways and complain because in the case of rural transport the subsidy has increased. The subsidy has been increased for the reason that he pointed out. The number of passengers has decreased, and it has been necessary to increase the subsidy in order to maintain a service. It is churlish not to congratulate the Government on increasing the subsidy.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to gloat over the collapse of British Coachways. It is a pity that he took that attitude. The 1980 Transport Act was a success in every way. British Coachways collapsed because the National Bus Company reacted quickly and admirably to the new competition to which it was exposed and was able both to increase the number of services offered and to lower the fares. Fares have been lowered by 40 per cent. in real terms since the Act was passed.
There has been a ricochet effect in that the railways have adopted a more competitive fare policy on inter-city routes. The inter-city saver fares are, I believe, a direct response to competition from the coaches. The 1980 Act was a great success, although it was a pity that British Coachways went under.
The hon. Gentleman complained about the problem posed to British shipping by flags of convenience. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that, but he seemed to imply that the problem was a new one, whereas in fact it is older than I am. There is a serious and continuing problem to world shipping from unfair competition from ships registered under flags of convenience. I do not suppose that our Government can solve the problem alone, but Governments of all colours in all countries should do all that they can to address it.
The hon. Gentleman complained about the level of support for public transport in this country relative to levels of support in Europe. If we are able on the whole to maintain good bus services and a good railway system on a lower level of subsidy than is provided by our European allies, that is a reason for congratulation rather than complaint. The very high level of subsidy which is required by the West German railway system is a cause for concern, not congratulation, to the West German Government. I am sure that the West German Government admires and envies what we have done in this country.

Mr. Snape: rose——

Mr. Parris: I shall give way in a moment.
I travel fairly widely in Europe by rail and bus, and I think that we have good rail and bus systems. They are not markedly worse than, for instance, what I have found in France.

Mr. Snape: Why, in the hon. Gentleman's view, do the West German Government subsidise the railway system to such an extent?

Mr. Parris: I am not an expert on the German railway system, but I believe that the problem is a historical one. It is possible for a Government to find that they are stuck with a level of subsidy and that it has become politically impossible not to continue to pour money into an ever-open pit.

Mr. Snape: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is hard to imagine that, with Chancellor Kohl in power, that reason is the correct one.

Mr. Parris: I have great admiration for Chancellor Kohl, but it is clear that our own Prime Minister has been even more effective where the railways are concerned.
Except for the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), most Opposition Members have spoken mostly about the railways. We all use and admire the railways and wish to see the railway system maintained and improved. However, my own rail journeys have suggested to me that the principal beneficiaries of rail travel in this country are middle-class—often upper middle-class—people. They are business people, and those who commute to their places of work from the leafy suburbs. If I was primarily concerned with the poorer or more needy sections of the population, I think that I would be more interested in bus transport and subsidies to the bus system, but the Labour party seems to be much less interested in the bus system than in the railway system.

Mr. John Home Robertson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Parris: I may be mistaken

Mr. Home Robertson: You are.

Mr. Parris: Many of the subsidies advocated by Opposition Members seem to me to tax the middle classes in order to provide services which are enjoyed primarily by the middle classes. That cannot be sensible.
Clearly, I shall not become the Secretary of State for Transport or be offered a chair in transport studies at any university or polytechnic.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The hon. Gentleman is too modest.

Mr. Parris: Nevertheless, I shall deliver a little lecture about the theory of transport subsidy, even if it falls upon the desert air. I do not think that any hon. Member in the Chamber is against subsidy in principle. All three parties recognise that public transport must continue to be subsidised. The question is not whether we are for subsidy or against it.
Why do we subsidise public transport? First, subsidy can be a means of redistributing wealth and of transferring wealth from the rich to the less well-off. It can be a means of helping the needy and those who for special reasons may lack access to private transport.
Secondly, subsidies can be a means of sustaining the backbone of our transport system and protecting it from collapse. On grounds of public transport policy itself,

subsidy may be used in order to provide an efficient means of transporting people and goods with the speed and in the quantity which in some cases only public transport can offer. Those two strands—the redistribution of wealth and the maintenance of a transport infrastructure—are hopelessly confused in the public mind and sometimes in parliamentary debate. I wish to discuss them separately.
Firstly, there is the question of the transfer of wealth. Why do we use public transport as and to the extent we do for transferring wealth? The reasons are historic. Many local authorities have ambitions for social engineering but the means available to them to be architects of social policy are fairly limited. South Yorkshire county council, for example, does not make foreign policy or determine the criminal law but it is responsible for the south Yorkshire passenger transport authority. Public transport is one of the few means by which ambitious local authorities have been able to effect a little social engineering. That is perhaps why the resources. interest and weight that have gone into public transport subsidy have been directed in that way by local authorities.
The second reason for our choosing to transfer wealth as I have described is based on an illusion—the illusion that transport subsidy is an efficient way in which to redistribute wealth. The argument goes that we take 20p from a rich man and give a fare worth 20p free to a poor man. There are two reasons why that is not an efficient means of transferring wealth. First, the value lost in the process of transfer can be considerable. Value is lost because of rigidities and inefficiencies in the bureaucratic and mechanical means by which money is removed from the tax and ratepayer and the subsidised journey is delivered to the passenger.
Secondly, value is lost because free or cheap transport might not be what the beneficiary would have chosen if he had had a choice. It might have some value to him but it might not be equal to the cost of the subsidy. If, for example, we subsidised sandwiches and distributed them free or at reduced prices throughout the capital. the sandwiches would all be eaten and enjoyed and some wealth would usefully be transferred, but it would be an inefficient means of transferring wealth because it would not necessarily be what everyone wanted.

Mr. Crowther: I listened with interest to what the hon. Gentleman said about south Yorkshire's policy. Does he accept that the beneficiaries of that policy—the public of south Yorkshire — have voted overwhelmingly in favour of it, knowing all the implications to which he has referred, in every county election since 1973?

Mr. Parris: I accept that and that argument would take us, if I was prepared to stray from order, into a debate on financing local government. Those people are quite right to vote for that policy. Their interests lie in voting for it and it is logical and rational that they vote for it, because they are not paying for it.

Mr. Crowther: They are all ratepayers.

Mr. Parris: Yes they are, but 19 per cent. of the cost of subsidising south Yorkshire passenger transport executive is paid for out of domestic rates and the remaining 89 per cent. is paid for by the taxpayer and out of business rates.

Mr. Snape: Eighty-nine and 19 per cent. comes to more than 100 per cent.

Mr. Parris: Eighty-one per cent. Maths never was my strong point — another reason why I shall never be Secretary of State.
The second reason why public transport subsidy is not an efficient means of transferring wealth is that it is not only the needy who use public transport. Moreover, many of the needy do not or cannot use public transport. Many of the middle classes depend more on public transport than do many of the working classes.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with some care and difficulty. I thought that he was about to suggest that we should give each poor family in the land a Rolls-Royce and that that would solve the problem.

Mr. Carter-Jones: She has a constituency interest.

Mr. Parris: I was not about to suggest that, but there might sometimes be a case for examining what each poor family in the land costs in terms of public transport subsidy which is directed their way and asking whether they might not prefer the money.
I have made it clear that the transfer of wealth is not a good reason for subsidising public transport. The second reason—maintaining an efficient and necessary transport infrastructure—might be good in certain cases. Why is a transport infrastructure necessary and why can it be maintained only with public subsidy? It is necessary in the urban context because our road network is not up to carrying the volume of private motor traffic that it would have to carry if we had no public transport system in cities and towns. I do not need to labour that point, as I am sure that it is clear to everyone.
A transport infrastructure is also necessary for environmental reasons. It does not need restating that the environment is less damaged and threatened if many passengers are carried in a small number of conveyances as opposed to a small number of passengers travelling, as is the case with private motoring, in a large number of conveyances. Public transport therefore has a less damaging impact per passenger on the environment than private transport. It will be clear that the beneficiaries of public transport in an urban environment are not solely the users. In cities, the beneficiaries include pedestrians and residents, whose lives would become impossible if the place was clogged with private cars. In terms of the environment, the beneficiaries are all those who enjoy, or live in the vicinity of, a road or railway.
In a perfect free market system which was sensitive to needs and costs, we would be able to ensure that we extracted from the beneficiaries of public transport something like the price of the extent to which they have benefited. We would be able to charge the people whose environment had improved as a result of public transport the cost of providing that public transport. We would be able to charge motorists and residents the cost of providing the underground railways and the bus system which is necessary if motorists and residents are to continue to be able to motor and reside. Unfortunately, we do not have such a finely tuned system and it is unlikely that we shall ever achieve one. We have a fairly clumsy, imperfect and inefficient free market system and our attempts to subsidise public transport amount to no more than an attempt to compensate for the inadequacies of the free market system. That should be more widely recognised, especially on this side of the House.
Technology will eventually enable us to charge people much more specifically for the services they consume and the benefits they enjoy. I have in mind the extension of tachographs to motor cars. There will come a time when we know how often a person used his car and where he has gone in it, so that when people drive into central London we shall easily be able to record how much driving time they have used in peak hours in central London——

Mrs. Dunwoody: Nineteen eighty-four.

Mr. Parris: —and we will be able to charge them for it. When we can do that, we shall be able to charge a competitive price for buses and tubes, because it will be much more expensive to travel by car. [Interruption.] Those days have not yet come. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) murmurs that I have just blown any chances that I might have had of becoming Secretary of State for Transport. I shall therefore deal with a less controversial matter—my constituency. My hon. Friend the Minister has recently given people in Ashbourne in my constituency some welcome news. The Government are to commission a study into the possibility of a bypass around Ashbourne.

Mr. Home Robertson: There is a long way to go.

Mr. Parris: There is indeed a long way to go. It is only a first step, but it is further than we have got before. The announcement could not have come at a better time for the people of Ashbourne as, during the bank holiday weekend, we had traffic jams extending five miles out of the town in two directions. That is a perennial and worsening problem in the town. The statement could not have come at a better time. I hope that the study is concluded speedily; I feel sure that its conclusion will be that Ashbourne needs and deserves that bypass as soon as possible.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I shall not attempt to follow the attractive speech of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris). Instead, I shall try to return to realities rather than the mythology of a free market.
The House must attend to the question whether we are satisfied with Britain's transport system. A mounting body of evidence suggests that there is public concern. Nearly all the transport-related organisations and interested transport bodies have expressed positive objection to the general trends in the last two or three years in transport policy. More pertinently, they have expressed worries arising out of the proposals for the future, not least of which is the Bill for the abolition of metropolitan counties and the effect that that will have on valuable transport undertakings. Therefore, the House must not be complacent and seek to follow the usual speech that the Secretary of State makes in whatever ministerial role he has. He produces the same speech whatever the responsibility that the Prime Minister unfortunately gives him.
We must say that there is some concern about the present state of transport in the United Kingdom. It would be dishonest for Conservative Members to align themselves wholly with the policy of their Front Bench when to our knowledge they are protesting to the Government about the effect of their policies in the areas


that they represent. The most recent example is that of the Settle to Carlisle line. Indeed, Conservative Members have been more vocal than most on that topic.
We understand that the Government have to make their case. They have to hold their corner. However, it must not blind them to the reality of what is happening in Britain. Informed opinion shows strongly that we are running our railway system on the cheap. A recent report on European railway systems, commissioned by an independent transport consultancy, shows that British Rail is locked in a vicious circle of decline. The Government's misguided attempts to save money—those are the operative words—will cost us dear in future, and certainly in the short run. Fewer passengers will mean less revenue, followed by poorer services, followed by still higher fares and the further sales of assets to try to balance the books when those assets are beginning to dry up. The sale of assets is one reason why British Rail's annual report shows it to be in the black for the moment. Let us not be bemused by that because we have not had an analysis of that balance sheet. British Rail's assets have been a source of income which it will not enjoy in future.
Management, responding to Government policies, must cut certain services. It has to close lines and scrap some of its undertakings which need more investment. That is the factual picture. We cannot deny it, for it is there for all to see. That is the position in which management has been put. But worse than that, management is acting as agent provocateur for the Government. The message has gone out to area managements to say nothing which will embarrass the Government. The Government are doing the ordering, with the pretence that it is the management's responsibility. When management has to do such things, the consequences for Britain's economy are, to say the least, desperate.
We must decide what kind of transport system we want in the United Kingdom. If we believe that an upturn in the world economy will produce growth, that there will be more output and more employment, we need a transport system that will reflect those efficiencies in the quicker movement of passengers and goods.
The sad fact is that British Rail has been forced to withdraw about £600 million of planned investment because the Government refuse to give approval for it. Warnings have come in the past few years. British Rail's investment performance ceiling target for 1979 was £387 million. In 1980 it was £398 million, and that figure continued until 1982–83. The amount needed in 1982 to equal the 1979 allocation in real terms would be £569 million. In other words, between 1979 and 1982–83 there was a 30 per cent. shortfall in investment ceiling targets. The total investment in 1979 was £379 million, and in 1982 £265 million—a shortfall of 48 per cent. That is the investment figure taken from the annual report of the British Railways Board. In fact, British Rail's investment in real terms by 1982 had fallen to little more than half the low level of 1977. In 1983, British Rail expected an investment of a further £200 million. That should be compared with the target figure of £1,300 million in West Germany and £900 million in France. Even the public service obligation in Britain last year fell 12 per cent. below the 1979 figure. Britain's financial support in percentage terms of the gross domestic product is the least favourable of eight European countries, with the exception of Denmark.
It is no good the Government coming to the House with a puerile insignificant and unreal amendment to the Labour party's serious proposition today in the light of the authoritative opinion of Sir Peter Parker, a respected chairman of British Rail, in March 1980. He said:
High fares on British Rail are due neither to excessive wage levels, nor poor productivity, but to relatively low support from the taxpayer for railways in Britain.
In other words, there is too little support from the Government. That was his conclusion and his considered opinion. I believe that that opinion is more acceptable to the general public and to the people who are concerned about transport than the prognostications of the Government.
The reduction in railway jobs, as an indication of the contribution to productivity to which Sir Peter Parker referred, can be summed up in this way. In 1950, 497,000 people were employed in the British Rail network. By 1981, 166,000 employees were left—a loss of 331,000 jobs. In the last year, 6,000 jobs have been lost and, by 1985–86, another 15,000 jobs will have gone.
In 1981, passenger mile figures were only 5 per cent. below the level of 1950. Set against over 70 per cent. shedding of jobs, from a manpower and trade union point of view this represents a contribution to productivity which is not only startling as an example of the dedication of the work force and the unions to British Rail and the desire to see it a productive and efficient undertaking, but demonstrates that it has not been matched by any investment programme to achieve the objectives of an efficient service. The nub of the problem in the decline of British Rail rests with low investment, not with manpower or with the trade unions. Those are the hard facts and figures.
There is an abundance of evidence, comparing British Rail with other European countries, that we have a favourable record of productivity on low pay and longer working hours, but we receive far less in Government support and investment.
Sir Peter Parker gave a warning a little less than four years ago, in an annual report, when he said:
The results of under investment are now showing through in the deteriorating quality of service in parts of the system. We are replacing our assets at a lower rate than any other European railway, and we are not investing in new opportunities which railways and other Governments elsewhere see as necessary to the long-term futures of their countries.
Sir Peter Parker is a man of considerable business acumen and experience with an excellent record in British Rail. He was fighting his corner, before he was nobbled by the Government, when he made that kind of judgment. I challenge the Government to say that Sir Peter Parker's warnings were wrong. He has better knowledge of the situation than any Minister and of any advice in the Department that might come to a Minister.

Mr. Gregory: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman has referred to Sir Peter Parker so regularly. He may like to be reminded that there is a new chairman of the British Railways Board. We have not heard the hon. Gentleman say very much about that. Sir Peter Parker was also a former Labour party parliamentary candidate.

Mr. Leadbitter: I shall ignore the last comment. However, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I have not referred to Sir Peter Parker regularly. I have quoted Sir Peter Parker twice only, and I have referred to the present chairman. I have suggested that he is acting as an agent


provocateur. It is my understanding that the message had gone out to regional managers not to say anything that would embarrass the Government, so I have referred to the present chairman. Indeed, I suggest that hon. Members dwell on one simple thought. Why did Sir Peter Parker go, and why did Bob Reid get his job? It was because it was more convenient for the Government. The Government were pursuing policies of fragmentation and privatisation.
Indeed, on one subject alone there is a record of procrastination and delaying tactics on what mattered most to British Rail — electrification. If ever there was a disgraceful story about postponing investment in electrification, there has been one in the past few years. On 7 May 1981, a firm promise was given to carry out a comprehensive programme of electrification. Each time that we have raised the question in recent years, one excuse after another has been given. A comprehensive plan has been proposed, and it has been thrown back to British Rail. We asked questions about the north-east line, and were told that the information had not come in. When we asked about another line, we were told that the information was about to come in.
The problem arose because the Government, in a doctrinal fashion, were set on two fronts. The first was the attack on the trade union movement. The Government cannot deny that. During the ASLEF strike, words were used which implied an attempt to smash that union. That union, the NUR and the Transport and Salaried Staffs Association have shed thousands of their members in cooperating with the productivity objectives of British Rail. The unions have not fought against proper management and manpower objectives in the face of increasing new technologies. Electrification can produce quicker rail travel, and that is an economy. It is also cheaper to run, and that is an economy. The energy savings that accrue after electrification are an economy, and the clean air for the travellers is a benefit. Electrification also brings profitability, which is what the Conservative party claims to want. Why is there hesitation about electrification?
What is the state of British Rail today? Who dare mention management's struggle to maintain safety levels on British Rail, with the backlog in track maintenance and the clapped-out rolling stock? Even the 125s are now so overworked that reports are coming in of regular breakdowns. The feeder lines have been allowed to wither away. Not only is there a reduction of services, but there is a tremendous backlog in signalling modernisation. These are the facts.
I mentioned earlier that I was concerned about future policies. The Government might listen to opinion in the House, since they have not found it convenient to express an opinion about the objections that have been raised to the proposals for the abolition of the metropolitan counties. I shall quote here not my opinion, but the opinion of people who are in the business. In responding to the White Paper on transportation, the Automobile Association said:
On road construction and maintenance … the Metropolitan County Councils have performed satisfactorily. It appears most unlikely that devolution will result in any benefits.
The British Road Federation stated:
In many respects the Metropolitan Counties have improved upon the record of their predecessor highways authorities. There

is a danger that worthwhile schemes will be seriously delayed by the transfer of power from six authorities to 36 highways authorities.
The British Railways board—the Government have kept this quiet—stated:
Devolution of structure planning to Districts will inevitably lead to an increasingly complex network of relationships. The PTEs will have to consider potentially divergent structure plans from up to 10 district councils rather than from a single County Council. British Rail engineers will now be required to liaise with each individual district council over bridge works … This will inhibit the Board's ability to reduce its staff.
The National Waterways Transport Association stated:
The proposals … by removing the conurbation-wide overview of transport, will artificially fragment the local government element in transport planning. This function will be redistributed between interests whose views may well conflict, resulting in indecision, delay and increased bureaucracy.
The Freight Transport Association stated:
The FTA believes that the Department of Transport consultation papers put too much reliance on the establishment of voluntary joint committees and simple voluntary co-operation between adjacent authorities. All our experience tells us that such arrangements just do not work.
The Public Transport User Group stated:
We have considered value for money, and support efforts to reduce waste. We must be assured, however, that the abolition of the Metropolitan Councils and the GLC will save money. The White Paper does not give this assurance. Indeed there is evidence that costs could increase. We can foresee that the proposals … will lead gradually to disintegration and a return to the confusions of the pre-1968 period.
In the light of that evidence, I put it to hon. Members who represent such conurbations that if the Government presume for one moment that it is right to pursue this policy and put aside all those objections and anxieties about their policy, they will rightly be charged with pursuing a dogmatic policy that is so philosophically hidebound with the past that they cannot envisage future needs. The Government will try as best they can to win the day, but I put it to seriously disposed hon. Members—not fettered by the straitjacket of the Department but thinking about the matter from their own experience—that it would be wise to take note of those comments.
However, there is more to it than that. If we want a transport system that integrates rail, road, freight, air and port services, does not recent transport legislation conflict with the Trade Descriptions Acts 1968 and 1972? If the Government win tonight, the country will lose, because we are living in a changing world with changing technology. There has been a 70 per cent. contribution by the work force since 1950—[Interruption.] It is no good laughing about it. This is a serious matter. We are talking not about political enhancement in this place, but the quality of life and the future of people's children. Compared with European countries, Britain has made a dismal hash of its transport policies for too long. There has been too little investment, policies of expediency, policies tarnished by dogma, and too little response to what has always been the support of our institutional lives — consensus. Abrasive government is not successful government.
As soon as the Secretary of State entered office he sought to devise how best to aggravate an already dangerous situation. He sought how best to close his eyes to reality. I ask the Minister to come to the House one day and report the worries of the British Railways Board about maintaining safety standards. We need more investment.


Europe has seen the sense of that. I hope that the Government will recognise that tonight's vote is much less important than need for them to change their mind.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Clearly many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, so the briefer the speeches the fewer unhappy hon. Members we shall have at 10 o'clock.

Mr. Gary Waller: I shall try to accede to your request, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall certainly speak much more briefly than the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), because I recognise that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
Throughout five years of Conservative Government, we have heard repeatedly from the Opposition predictions of the imminent end of the transport world as we know it, and we heard that story again today. In the past, and again today, the Government have been portrayed as being anti-rail, but as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, it is not the job of Government to discriminate between one mode of transport and another. The customer should be allowed to make the choice.
As early as November 1979 The Guardian printed a story that there were firm plans to close 900 miles of the railway network. Since then, the Labour party has done its best to scare the electorate into believing that a Conservative Administration, in Whitehall or in the town hall, would have as its priority the closure of more lines and services. The Serpell report, which set out several illustrations of the effects of a variety of options, was leapt upon as a clear sign that most of the network was destined to disappear.
The truth has been different, as the letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the chairman of British Rail, Mr. Bob Reid, made clear. As he again said today, the Government do not intend to pursue a programme of major route closures. While the Opposition have prognosticated gloom and doom, the British Railways Board has adopted a different approach. It has gone on with its job of providing a better service for the customer and giving the taxpayer better value for money.
The annual report that has just been published shows that the new management reforms designed to make BR more competitive by splitting it into five different businesses have already produced dividends. There were clear indications that there will be a better future for the railways.
Just before the recess, the glossy book referred to by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) arrived on my desk. It is published by the National Union of Railwaymen and sets out the familiar theme of an impending end to railways in Britain if the Government's policies continue to be followed. It is interesting that there is no suggestion in its 200 pages that the union has ever been slow to embrace change, although I must say that the NUR's rival ASLEF does not escape a few sideswipes.
The thesis of the book and of many Opposition Members today is that all that has been wrong with British Rail in recent years is a dearth of investment. All that is necessary to bring about a radical improvement is a massive infusion of money. The aim of the next Labour Government

should be to expand the network of public transport so as to provide a minimum level of services at low prices for the population as a whole.
No suggestion, one notes, that benefits should be measured in relation to their costs.
Later, there is an endorsement of the option put forward by the consultants, Transport and Environment Studies, to electrify as much as 60 per cent. of the network at a cost of £3·9 billion over eight years. That suggestion takes no account of its inflationary effects or, indeed, of where the money should come from.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) did not say whether the Labour party is committed to such an investment or infusion of £3·9 billion. Perhaps we shall hear from his hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape, i whether the Labour party is committed to that investment and where the money will come from.

Mr. Snape: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House, perhaps by answering his own question, whether he was a member of the House of Commons Select Committee on Transport, which recommended widespread further electrification of the railway system and, if so, why he supported that recommendation?

Mr. Waller: I was certainly a member of that Select Committee when it considered the electrification proposal. The Committee did not suggest that there should be massive investment without conditions. It suggested that the electrification of the east coast main line should go ahead, subject to the satisfaction of some stringent conditions. I stick by that view.
The latest report from British Rail records much better punctuality and reliability, as well as improvements in nearly all the key performance indicators and a reduction in overmanning. That contrasts with the unwillingness of ASLEF to accept flexible rostering in 1982, although the practice was widespread on the Continent.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool suggested that the unions have never stood in the way of progress Perhaps he has forgotten what happened in 1982. The shortsightedness of that policy was quickly seen in the accelerating acceptance of flexible rostering when the predicted extra money found its way into the drivers' paypackets. What a tragedy it was that that unnecessary strike cost BR almost £170 million, which could have been invested for the future in much the same way that has been suggested today.
The motion castigates the Government for their privatisation policies. Those policies have, however, produced benefits, no more so than in the case of the National Freight Company. It has achieved vastly accelerating profits since it was taken over by a consortium of management and employees. Between October 1981, when the company was in the public sector and October 1983 when it was in the private sector, turnover increased by 12·5 per cent., trading profit by 23·5 per cent. and operating profit by as much as 58 per cent. That really was not bad, as Opposition Members may grudgingly accept, in a period of international recession.
We have started to see some of the benefits for BR deriving from privatisation that Sir Peter Parker was looking for when he called as early as 1977 for the introduction of private capital into some of the subsidiary activities.
Although British Rail tends to hold the spotlight, we should not forget that many of our constituents depend upon buses for short-distance travel. Buses can be highly efficient in terms of land use and in reducing congestion. It is also significant that between 1971 and 1981 the number of bus conductors was reduced by 74 per cent., leading to an improvement in vehicle miles per member of staff employed.
The fact that the National Bus Company has been a major beneficiary of the relaxation of licensing is to be welcomed. So long as NBC remains in the public sector, it is for everybody's benefit—user and taxpayer alike—that it should be run as efficiently as possible.
One of the benefits of the 1980 Act is that it makes it easier for county councils such as Oxfordshire, Hereford and Worcester, and Norfolk to pursue a tendering approach to public transport subsidies. Just as the Government accept the need for what Sir Peter Parker called the social railway, so subsidies—I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) —will be needed for many bus services for the foreseeable future. However, I should like to see an end to cross-subsidisation, which is an economically inefficient means of allocating support. It seems to me much better that unremunerative bus services should be offered to those operators who are willing to accept the lowest subsidy, just as profitable services should be given to those operators who are willing to tender the highest bid.
Not so happy a story is that of London Transport under the GLC. The fact that, while passenger demand fell by about 25 per cent. between 1970 and 1982, staffing remained almost constant and fares rose in real terms by 85 per cent. but that no steps were taken to deal with a scandalous level of fare evasion that any other system would have regarded as unacceptable shows that the moves taken by the Government to reorganise it and to acquire responsibility are more than fully justified.
The latest scare story is that the abolition of the metropolitan county councils will inevitably lead to a collapse of public transport services in the conurbations. It is, likewise, a story to be firmly put in its place. I have to say that the record of local authority reorganisation a decade ago is not a good portent. I tend to be one of those to approach more changes with mixed feelings. It would have been much better to get things right the first time round.
I must agree, however, with the consultation paper, which says:
Most transport functions can be carried out satisfactorily by the District Councils
whether they are acting separately or together, and adds:
re-organisation provides the opportunity to eliminate the duplication of functions.
One of my reservations about the joint boards that would form the passenger transport authorities relates to the quality of people representing the districts. Experience suggests that appointees tend to be those least likely to succeed in their own authorities, who can be conveniently shunted out into the sidings.
With regard to roads, reorganisation must provide the focus for a clear examination of the division between trunk and local authority roads. As the Minister of State has said, there may not be the same need as in greater London for

extensions of trunking, but many of the existing divisions between trunk and county roads result from historical factors rather than present-day movements, and they should be subject to close scrutiny.
The terms of the Opposition's motion in relation to roads do not stand up to examination. The road-building programme has moved ahead fast, although it has been inhibited sometimes by the laborious public inquiry procedure, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) referred.
My constituents hope to see a start made on the Airedale route in the next financial year. It has been held up by objections of one kind or another, and no one should be surprised at their scepticism. The route is certainly vital to the future development of the Aire valley.
The way in which road space is allocated in cities such as London is highly inefficient. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) hinted at some of the ways of putting the matter right. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West went a little further. The logic behind road pricing is inescapable, especially as the technical problems can largely be overcome. However, as my hon. Friend suggested, the political objections remain as formidable as ever.
The results of the Hong Kong experiment will be very interesting, but there is a world of difference between Hong Kong and London. In the meantime, I believe that there is a need to do something about the wholesale flouting of parking regulations, which artificially favours the car and therefore congestion, and makes the movement of public transport in the cities more difficult.
If we are to believe the motion, investment in transport has all but disappeared. In fact, the Government's critical approach has produced benefits and will produce more in future. As Jim O'Brien, joint managing director of British Rail, has said—I hope that he will not be dismissed as another poodle of the Conservative Government—
There is no crumbling edge, investment really isn't a problem now.
He was quoted in The Sunday Times only last month.
Of course many improvements are needed throughout the transport infrastructure, but, as in so many other areas, throwing money at the problem would produce the greatest possible waste of resources. Choice for the customer will be more likely to flow from sensible investment based on competing modes with a minimum of interference from the Government. Although the Opposition's motion obscures rather than illuminates their own policies, enough is clear for us to know that those objectives are totally at odds with their approach.

Mr. Alan Williams: I should like to declare a new interest, in that I, like my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), have just become sponsored by the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association.
I am intrigued to take part in another debate with the Secretary of State. Over the years we have encountered each other in various Departments, either when he has been in government and I have been out of government, or I have been in government and he has been out of government. I remember him being the scourge of the quango, but he is now complacently reconciling his conscience with the fact that he is just about to create the London Regional Transport Board. I remember him saying


constantly in Committees on industry Bills that he would never accept that the man from Whitehall knew best. However, now he is the man in Whitehall, and it became apparent today that he is convinced that he knows best. We were not surprised at the element of consistency that emerged, which was that his old commitment to privatisation remains. He will not be surprised to find that our commitment against privatisation also remains.
I ask the Secretary of State, apart from the doctrinal arguments for and against, to take into account the fact that the privatisation programmes that have been implemented have had some problems, to which the Secretary of State and his colleague the Minister of State should turn their attention. Problems have arisen from the sale of the British Railways Board hotels to the Virani Group and Barclay Brothers. Those people now flatly refuse to honour the commitments and obligations that they entered into when they were allowed to go ahead with the purchase. They have had to be taken to court in some cases to ensure that sickness payments were made to employees.
I hope that the Secretary of State will bear in mind that, with regard to Sealink and the London Regional Transport Board. the unions and members of the concerns to be privatised will need convincing that there will be a more adequate protection of their rights as employees—their negotiated contractual rights. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the inadequacy of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and what can be done to tighten them. He owes it to us to say what he and his colleagues are doing, faced with that blatant disregard for the protection that the House intended and that apparently the Government intended when they introduced the regulations. Alternatively, do the Government care about breaches in undertakings or rules only when they are made by what they see as the other side in industry?
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) asked why we subsidise. The Secretary of State spoke about the need for value for money. Let us bear in mind that profitability is not the sole criterion by which one judges value for money. Any motorist has only to be reminded what it would mean if £140 million-worth of freight went on to the roads instead of the railways for him to appreciate the value of having an alternative element in the transport system. It also has an important strategic role, which successive Governments have recognised.
The industry has a strong social impact. I warn the Secretary of State that the policies that he is forwarding will lead inevitably to a decline in the services offered by the railways. The Government's policies are generating a vicious downward spiral in services. During this decade we shall see a marked fallback in the quality of service. There is a certain self-defeating logic in the Secretary of State's argument. For example, there is his approach to privatisation as a goad to greater profitability. The reality is that, if one successively creams off the sectors of an industry that are making a profit, one makes it increasingly impossible for what remains to carry out traditional cross-subsidisation. Cross-subsidisation in the railways is traditional. The old Great Western Railway used cross-subsidisation for good commercial reasons, because it needed the feeder lines to ensure that it got the business on to its main lines. It also needed them as delivery lines to local communities.
Cross-subsidisation is not evil or uncommercial. It is not even a Socialist precedent. It has always been a fact

of life in the railways system. However, if one takes away the profitability, one takes away the capability to cross-subsidise. Therefore, one predetermines the collapse of the system or a massive rundown in it. Meanwhile, in the profitable chunks of the industry that are being sold off, the purchasers prune away at the elements that are least profitable, so that at both ends there is a diminution in the service to the public.
That is made worse by the fact that the Government are making massive cuts in the PSO grant, which successive Governments have made to the railways to recognise the social impact to which I referred — the need to keep certain non-remunerative services in existence. Yet the Government, in their generosity, propose to cut the £855 million of PSO grant last year to £635 million by 1986. That is a cut of £220 million, at the same time as profitable sectors are being hived off. The Secretary of State should note that, if British Rail had not had the profit of Sealink alone in the past 12 months, that would have turned the profit from the British Railways Board's operations, about which the right hon. Gentleman boasted, into a loss.
In addition to hiving off the profit-earning elements and the massive cut of £200 million in the grant to keep the non-remunerative lines open, there is the Government's proposal for the metropolitan authorities, which could deprive transport of as much as £77 million that it receives from the metropolitain authorities at the moment. The major factor that predetermines the downward spiral is this. Not only is there creaming off, a cut in the grant and a loss of support from local authorities, but the Government are unwilling to recognise, as other Governments in Europe have, that there is a need for a massive infusion of capital into the railway system.
The Minister boasted about an increase by 1985 of 40 per cent. in investment in rail, but in 1980 the British Railways Board told the Government that by 1985 it would need an increase of 60 per cent. just to sustain its network and to keep it running. On that criterion alone, the figure about which the Minister boasts is substantially below the level necessary to sustain the system in the long term. One must bear it in mind, as the Minister smirks away, that by taking into account purely short-term considerations, the Americans have found that their railway system is now virtually beyond resurrection and salvation. Massive modernisation and renewal are essential.
The latest plan shows only a 40 per cent. increase by 1985, yet the British Railways Board reckons that, in addition to the £200 million that will have been taken from it by then, it needs a further £170 million invested than the Government envisage. Here we have a cut in grant, inadequate provision of investment and the hiving off of those areas that are providing the profit that might enable the industry to become more efficient and to carry out its own investment.
It is no good the Minister pretending that efficiency is purely a manpower function and that so long as we deal with the manpower problem we deal with the problem of efficiency. Paragraph 3.2 of the corporate plan states:
Assuming that investment in the railways were confined to existing levels, it is forecast that by 1990 some 3,000 out of the present 22,000 miles of track will have had to be closed. Before then"—
and the Minister boasts of improving efficiency—
progressively severe restrictions of speed will have to be imposed because of deteriorating conditions which will make


some journeys slow and unattractive. By the same time the signalling equipment on 7,000 miles of railway will be more than 50 years old—in many cases much older still.
Capital stock as well as manpower efficiency is essential if we are to maximise the efficiency of the rail transport system, as is efficient and expanding marketing. Indeed, in his press statement earlier this month, the present chairman said:
The way to prosper in any business is to satisfy the customer by giving him value for money.
I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree entirely with that proposition, in which case he should look at paragraph 3.3 of the British Railway Board's corporate plan, which also states:
So, looking ahead, existing investment limitations, if continued, will lead to closure of substantial parts of the railway during this decade. Money will be diverted to patching up old rolling stock which ought to be scrapped and replaced with new modern vehicles, which in any case could be a more cost effective course of action. Unreliability caused by engineering breakdowns will increase.
That is the consequence of the investment programme about which the Minister has had the impertinence to boast. It must be judged against the injunction from the current chairman—the Secretary of State's placeman—that the way to prosper in any business is to satisfy the customer by giving value for money.
Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that the scenario of the corporate plan—of reduced speeds and the use of outdated rolling stock and antiquated signalling equipment—will add to the efficiency of the industry? He is offering a continuation not of investment but of make do and mend. He is predetermining that the industry will be typified by the obsolescence of its equipment. He is selling the future of our transport industry to his own doctrinal imperative to privatise everything and anything.

Mr. Tim Smith: I hope that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) will forgive me if I do not follow him on the subject of British Rail, because I wish briefly to refer to the ultimate lame duck that is the least attractive and difficult responsibility of the Department of Transport—the Port of London Authority.
The PLA is a public trust with no equity capital, but it has two quite different functions, which the last annual report succinctly described. The first is responsibility
for the conservancy of 95 miles of the tidal River Thames
and the second is the ownership and operation of
facilities for the handling of … cargo.
I regard those two functions as entirely distinct. The first is an entirely justifiable activity for a public authority, but I am not sure about the second. I see no apparent reason why a public trust of this kind—indeed any public body—should be responsible for cargo handling.
In the long run, a simple solution to the difficult problems which the authority presents to my right hon. Friend would be to dispose of cargo handling. Unfortunately, the PLA at present is making no money, for a number of reasons. The first is the very fact that it is a public trust. If it were in the private sector, it would perhaps be more profitable. The second and more important is its historical obligations.
The authority is bound by the national dock labour scheme and the Jones-Aldington agreement, which the chairman in his report describes as follows:
We are required to pay the costs of surplus manpower that does not accept voluntary severance; we are the employer of last resort in the event of other employers in the Port of London shedding Registered Dock Workers.
That is an impossible burden and a totally open-ended commitment which is completely inconsistent with a commercial operation and far more akin to the provision of a social service. If the Government want to support jobs in that way, it would be more sensible and honest to do so directly rather than by requiring the PLA to do so.
Historically the PLA has always been just about to turn the corner and make a profit, but in December 1982 the Government rightly put their foot down and announced the ending of continuing financial support. Although the accounts are not yet available, I understand that last year the PLA made a further trading loss. As no Government support was forthcoming, the only way in which it could be funded was by the sale of the Royal Victoria dock for £5 million.
In fact, the PLA is quite big in real estate. A whole page in the report is devoted to that subject. It has leased 90 acres in docklands for the short take-off and landing airport. Wates is building 220 houses on six acres of PLA land in docklands, and another 14·5 acres are to be developed for housing. In addition, 128 workshop units are being built for small businesses. This is all commendable stuff—I am very much in favour of such activity—but I wonder whether we would not be better off if all these assets were passed from the PLA to docklands. At Tilbury there is an Asda superstore and the PLA is the landlord, and 200 homes are under construction.
Is this really a proper role for a public trust, and has not the time come to start to sort it out? The solution is clear—to restrict the PLA to its conservancy function and to dispose of all its other activities and assets to the private sector, or simply to wind them up if no buyers can be found.
In fact, there is nothing simple or straightforward about this, because the national dock labour scheme and the Jones-Aldington agreement will have to be tackled first. I suppose that primarily they are matters for the Department of Employment rather than the Department of Transport. However, these agreements have achieved precisely the opposite object to that intended. They have destroyed jobs, not preserved them, and by January 1983 the work force in the port of London was down to 4,400.
There is one other inequity about this. The port rates, or dues, levied by the PLA amounted to about £9 million in 1982 and are currently the subject of an inquiry under the Harbours Act. The PLA told the inquiry, in defence of these charges, which are levied on private operators in the port of London, that it has to carry uncommercial burdens such as pension funding and surplus labour under the dock labour scheme. That may be the case, but this is the ultimate nonsense. Private operators are being forced to contribute to a social service. They are effectively being taxed if they operate in the port of London. The time has come for my right hon. Friend to put an end to that and to sort out this problem once and for all.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I am glad that the Secretary of State is here, because in December he invited


the Civil Aviation Authority to produce a statement on competition policy. It is difficult to shed tears for an old Treasury man, but I am sorry for the Secretary of State, because the statement stirred up a hornet's nest. Let me give a brief summary of what has happened in aviation.
Lord King has done a grand job and has brought British Airways into profitability. The Secretary of State is delighted about this, and said so, but he has forgotten that the company became profitable as a nationalised industry. The nub of my speech is that the Secretary of State should leave British Airways as it is. It would be delighted to have John King as its chairman and to remain as a nationalised industry.
Lord King wants to keep all the routes that British Airways possesses. In 1971 we implemented—after a fashion—the Edwards report. British Caledonian came into existence as a stronger force and obtained some routes. While the hot heavy language of privatisation was going around, British Caledonian, led ably by Adam Thomson, thought that it would like a slice of the action. He has made his bid through his famous blue book. The breakdown that Adam Thomson would like is 60 per cent. British Airways, 30 per cent. British Caledonian and 10 per cent. the rest.
The trouble is that that cannot be done legally without legislation. The document which the Secretary of State asked to be produced to assist him in encouraging competition has blown up in his face. Section 6 of the report, which is entitled "Consultation on Airline Competition Policy", says that the changes envisaged in section 5—the long-range scheduled routes desired by British Caledonian and others — are not a suitable vehicle to be used by the CAA. I hope that the Secretary of State will answer my question. Will we find that British Airways can be privatised but that the sharing out of the routes for competition, which the Secretary of State wants, cannot happen unless there is legislation to permit it?
This is an interesting question. I learned about it today, as the report is almost brand new. I have asked lawyers and they say that a serious constitutional issue is involved. The exercise on which the Secretary of State embarked in December 1983 almost takes us back to the merry days of debate in 1971 when the Government passed the legislation related to the Edwards report. I hope that the Secretary of State will reply to this point.
Something else emerges from the report. In looking for competition where it feels that that is possible, the CAA has arrogantly suggested that Manchester airport should have an airline of its own. Manchester's reply to that is "Over our dead bodies." Which dead bodies will get in the way? There is a whole range of them. First, Manchester airport does not want to lose British Airways. There is a relationship dating back to the days when BEA operated out of Manchester, and that collaboration continues to this day. Manchester airport wants it to continue.
Secondly, the people of Manchester want to keep their airport. It is their airport and it makes more profit than Gatwick. Apart from Heathrow, no other airport makes a greater profit than Manchester and the people want to keep it. Thirdly, having lived through the management change introduced by John King, having suffered the hardship of loss of jobs, the work force of Manchester airport and of British Airways want the right to remain at Manchester. If we talk about freedom, they should be given that right.
I am also delighted to see the Secretary of State here, because he is an old Treasury man. Part of the new

technique of producing competition and intensifying the activity in the airline service is to have feeder routes. This is why a Treasury man is so important. He can get the ear of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and allow us to buy the available British aircraft that will be useful for feeder routes. They will satisfy the requirements of a huh airport concept, which is what the Secretary of State is after.
The aircraft—British, I am pleased to say—are the 146, the Short 360, the 748 for short haul in the Highlands and Islands—I hope that the Secretary of State will hear this in mind, because British Airways wants to buy that — and the advanced turbo prop. Although this is a procurement problem, to get a satisfactory airport policy going the Secretary of State will need those aircraft.
There is another small point to be made about procurement. We should buy British aircraft as far as possible. Here I pay tribute to British Caledonian, ir that it has bought the A310 and has options on the, as yet unbuilt, A320. Lord King has kept his options wide open and has taken leases on the Boeing 737. I hope that at the end of the day the Secretary of State can exercise his pressure, influence, obvious charms and obvious powers of great persuasion to get British Airways to buy part of the Airbus series, the A310 and perhaps the A320. This would bring a great sense of satisfaction to the work force and to British industry.
I may be asked why I am always going on about buying British aircraft. The answer is partly because I used to fly them and partly because I do not want to see British industry going down the drain. We have seen cotton and steel go, and the motor car industry suffer. Here we have an industry that is supreme in the world. Do not be misled by the talk of Boeing—we produce first-class aircraft. With first-class British aircraft and a Secretary of State who has great and undoubted ability, the airline industry of Britain can be the pride and joy that it ought to be. The Secretary of State must persuade people to buy British. I am prepared to go on my knees to preserve the British aircraft industry.
I end on a constituency note, which is not unknown in the House. Manchester airport must remain in the possession of Manchester. British Airways must be allowed to continued flying in and out of Manchester. If the CAA report is accepted and an alternative airline is brought in, as the manager of Manchester airport says, it is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Manchester is prepared to take other airlines and will welcome them, but it wants to keep British Airways.
I hope that the Secretary of State will give me a reply, possibly in writing, on another and unrelated issue. It concerns the Manchester ship canal, which has served the north-west extremely well and is part of our transport system. We want the Secretary of State to try to keep it open as a navigation canal all the way up to the Salford docks.
The Manchester Ship Canal Company recognises and accepts its responsibilities to dredge the canal, but this is not just an ordinary canal. It is a canalised river. It is the River Irwell, which feeds eventually into the Mersey. The Secretary of State may feel that he is responsible for the transport side, but the major feature is the water course—the river system—which needs to be maintained. It is hoped that he will get together with the Secretary of State for the Environment, because the people of the north-west would welcome his intervention in preserving this route for


pleasure, while sustaining adequate water resources in the region and at the same time making it available for navigation.
I hope that the Secretary of State will bear in mind the wishes of the people in my area. We want British aircraft built and flown by British companies. We want those airports which have been worked successfully by local people to remain in the hands of local people. Above all, we want to know what sort of dog's dinner the right hon. Gentleman will make of the report delivered to him last week.

Mr. David Mudd: I am delighted to be called immediately after the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones). It is refreshing these days to hear an Opposition Member making a speech which embodies the three qualities of optimism, patriotism and positive thinking about important issues.
I am unable to agree with the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), because I intend to support the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to repeal section 9 of the Ports Act 1964 as speedily as possible. My right hon. Friend will recall that as early as January of this year I drew attention to the outmoded value of this rather dubious piece of legislation and pointed out that it had become a delaying and confusing factor in port development in that, were an applicant to succeed, he had to conjure out of thin air a formula which would be acceptable, although not defined, to a Secretary of State who had no definitions on which to base his decision. It was a miracle of crystal gazing, of double guessing and of double estimates.

Mr. Prescott: I must point out that the National Ports Council was the body advising the Minister, and that the last Tory Administration abolished it.

Mr. Mudd: It was kind of the hon. Gentleman to make that intervention. However, later in my remarks I shall deal with his views on the Falmouth container terminal, and no doubt he will want to challenge me about that as well.

Mr. Prescott: There is no time.

Mr. Mudd: The hon. Gentleman says that there is no time, but I shall be dealing with his comments about it in a moment.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking this positive decision. Having seen his positive decision in this matter, I should like him to use the same spirited independence when discussing with his right hon. Friends two other inhibiting factors or threats to port development in the United Kingdom.
I refer, first, to the effects of the Rayner scrutiny on customs attendance at ports. It will be well known to anyone with knowledge of the port industry that an effective port depends on the speedy handling of passengers, cargo and components needed for ship repair. If the Rayner scrutiny is implemented fully, we may see a reduction in the customs presence at our ports and a corresponding reduction in the ability of those ports to answer the demands on them.
I do not suggest that we should move away from cost effectiveness—that would be almost a heresy under this

Administration — but I ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether a formula cannot be drawn up whereby a realistic structure of customs planning is available but any excess of availability is paid for by the customer rather than by the taxpayer. That would be helpful to the redevelopment and regeneration of many of our ports.
I also ask my right hon. Friend to take on board the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) about the future of the national dock labour scheme. It was introduced 37 years ago, but those covered by it have now dwindled to 13,000 in 54 ports. Since they are paid for by a surcharge of £1,200 per person employed in the ports industry, it means that British ports are coughing up about £15·5 million per annum which would be better used in the regeneration and redevelopment of port activities. When the scheme was drawn up 37 years ago, dock workers had to be protected—I do not argue about that—but the employment protection legislation now gives them that cover.
I now take up the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, who seemed to work up a fair old lather about the decision in favour of the Falmouth container terminal and hinted darkly that the end of the affair had not been heard. He appeared to suggest that industrial action would follow and that Armageddon would suddenly come upon us.

Mr. Prescott: indicated dissent.

Mr. Mudd: The hon. Gentleman shrugs his shoulders and denies that. I am glad that he does because, if the history of the British stevedoring industry had been one of staying at work instead of finding opportunities to break away from it and to interrupt work, the British ports industry would not be in the sad state that it is today.
I move on to discuss the future of the railways. We are now into the first year in which, in Cornwall, a decision was taken to return area management specifically to local level. The area manager has been given powers to decide his own scheduling, fares structure and timetable. He is introducing local uniforms. We are seeing the reintroduction of the livery and all that people traditionally associated with a local railway service.
One interesting development as a consequence has been a return of passengers to Cornish railways. In 1981–82 there was a fall-off of 7·4 per cent. in the number of passengers carried on the railways of Cornwall. In 1982 that dropped to a fall of only 2 per cent. That in itself is significant because in 1982 the railways lost 8 per cent. of their productive and earning time due to industrial action. Again, perhaps there is a message here — that, if needless industrial action can be avoided, the chances are there for the regeneration of trade and development.
I have made some specific points about the national dock labour scheme, the Rayner scrutiny report and my support for the repeal of section 9. I have offered a gentle guideline on the application of local good management, leading to public association with the railway system and increased revenue. I hope that I have made my point.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: I shall not follow the line taken by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) because he talked mainly about his constituency. I declare my interest as a Member


sponsored by the National Union of Railwaymen and who first joined the railways back in 1941. I have seen tremendous changes.
We must examine how important transport appears to be in the Government's strategy. The House must be convinced, particularly after the speech by the Secretary of State, that the Government have a strategy for the future of the transport industry. Government transport policy has been enlarged to include airways, airports and ports, as well as the more traditional functions.
Reference has been made to Mr. Bob Reid, the chairman and custodian of British Rail. He has been compared with Sir Peter Parker. I suspect that the Government do not take transport, and particularly British Rail, seriously. I am suspicious of the Government's motives. Mr. Bob Reid, as a railwayman, should have been the first choice for the job, but he was almost the last card in the pack. The Prime Minister hawked the job round almost every candidate. I suspect that the terms of reference associated with the job were not acceptable to the people who were first approached.
Bob Reid is now the chairman, and I hope that he will move away from his former duties as chief executive. The job is different. He now controls the whole situation; he does not merely carry out the wishes of someone else as he did when chief executive. I am worried that he may continue to succumb to the whims and wishes of the Secretary of State as he appeared to when he agreed to 1986 rather than 1988 for the payment of grant.
On 18 April 1984 Bob Reid was reported as having said that he hoped a campaign designed to change Government policies would be conducted through discussion and debate. I hope so, too. I do not want widespread strikes and discontent in the railways; I want discussion and debate. I hope that Mr. Reid will take the gag off his senior railway officials and allow them to act as advocates of the railway industry on the basis of their expertise and knowledge. They could be useful. They might even tell the Secretary of State something that could help him. I hope that Mr. Reid will encourage his officials to say what they think publicly so that the public can judge.
I had the forlorn hope that tonight we would be told something about east coast electrification. The Under-Secretary shakes his head, so I wonder when we shall hear about that. The issue has gone on and on. If ever there was a case for looking after our infrastructure with money from the North sea electrification of the railways, this is it. That could help to put money into a permanent infrastructure instead of wasting it. Providing that infrastructure would help to employ people. It would help to keep the expert electrification teams together and prevent some North sea oil money going down the drain to pay people in the dole queues.
What will happen to the transport responsibilities of the metropolitan authorities when they are dismantled? The Government have not said whether they will carry on the declared policies of the metropolitan authorities. For example, the Tyne and Wear authority has an excellent integrated service, which I recommend to other parts of the country. Its policy is to extend the metro system to Sunderland and out to the airport. I am amazed that it was not extended in the first place. The Secretary of State said that aid to metropolitan counties was somewhat below what was needed. I have no doubt about that.
The Government are gerrymandering by disposing of Labour-controlled councils and replacing them with their

own quangos. Will money be found to continue free fares for old-age pensioners or for other travel concessions which were approved by the elected representatives of metropolitan authorities?
I do not know how many Conservative Members represent areas where free concessions are given, but I know that many of the shire counties do not provide such concessions. One can appreciate the look on the face of an old-age pensioner who, on a day like today, sets out for the coast or for the shops using concessionary fares. Pensioners are now frightened that such pleasures will be taken away from them. In future there will be no public guarantee of such concessions.
The Tyne and Wear authority has just issued a leaflet stating intended policy. I doubt whether it will be carried out when the Secretary of State is responsible for transport there. The county plans half-price travel this summer. It is experimental, but it is introduced with a heart. It provides half-price travel for people who are out of work, in receipt of family income supplement, non-contributory invalidity pensions or housewives' non-contributory invalidity pensions. The weakest in our society are being offered about 90p a week to travel anywhere they like in the Tyne and Wear area.
That is an example of an elected authority carrying out a transport policy based not on profit and loss accounts, but on the needs of individuals who want to travel to look for work or to enjoy benefits which would be denied them without a cheap fares policy. We are entitled to know whether the Government intend to continue to support policies introduced by elected representatives.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) philosophised about subsidies. The Greater London council's action on fares reductions has been a success story. By reducing fares by 25 per cent. the GLC increased ridership by 15 per cent. and increased the money coming into the kitty. What was the matter with that?
In discussing subsidising transport systems one must refer to the metropolis of private enterprise—the United States. The Bay and Washington areas are heavily subsidised. I note that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) is smiling. He knows that the Select Committee noted the operation of that subsidy. The transport systems in Ontario, Paris and Hamburg are heavily subsidised. What is the matter with that? The controlling bodies in those areas decided that the transport systems were a necessary part of the infrastructure and that a profit and loss account did not make them that way. The authorities had to think about the part played by transport in the national infrastructure.
I hoped that the Secretary of State would give us some news about the east coast main line electrification programme, but obviously he will not. I hope that the Minister will answer some of the fears activating the hearts and minds of people looking for transport facilities in the metropolitan counties, so that they are not denied finance—not necessarily because of the Minister's actions but through rate support grant cuts. The Government's responsibility should be to ensure that a transport infrastructure and the present concessions remain after they have completed their period in office.

Mr. Conal Gregory: The Conservative approach to transport is to ensure that the user has a fair choice between competing modes with a minimum of state


interference. Contrary to the terms of the motion, there has been a continuing programme of investment in transport and an encouragement of the necessary infrastructure. No one should doubt the importance of transport. Businesses and consumers spend more than £50 billion on United Kingdom transport, accounting for more than one fifth of GDP. Despite the recession, transport spending has increased in the past three years by more than 25 per cent. Most transport is provided by the private sector, with a little under one fifth being supplied by the public sector.
I shall discuss two particular forms of transport—road road and rail. The motion erroneously refers to a deterioration in road infrastructure. The trunk roads and motorways, for which the Government are directly responsible, carry 13 per cent. of total traffic and 70 per cent. — a staggering figure — of the heaviest goods vehicles. Since 1979, we have protected more than 90 towns and villages on trunk roads in England by relieving them of through traffic, with four more bypasses due to be completed this spring. When the schemes now being built are completed, 65 per cent. of the historic towns on English trunk roads will have been relieved of through traffic, increasing to 90 per cent. when the existing programme of 156 schemes is completed by the early 1990s.
The Transport Act 1980 has enabled a freer approach to the approval of local bus services, by requiring those opposing a new bus service to prove to the traffic commissioners that the service will be against the public interest. Before that date, it was possible — in some cases this happened—for the National Bus Company subsidiary to hold the right to certain routes but, almost immorally, not to run them and to prohibit any other operator from so doing. The new legislation under this Government enables all operators to be more adventurous and competitive without the weight of bureaucratic decision which especially frightens the smaller operators. The legislation makes it considerably easier for those county councils to which my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) referred, such as Oxfordshire, Hereford and Worcester and now Norfolk, to pursue a tendering approach to subsidised public transport to ensure a competitive market in local bus services. The 1980 Act removed the legal constraints prohibiting the local authorities from using school transport to serve the public sector. Durham and Gloucester, for example, have shown that way.
I commend the ESCORT scheme—East Sussex co-ordinated rural transport—as as an example of how that method can be undertaken in north Yorkshire and other parts of the country. ESCORT is an experiment whereby schools, social services, hospitals and public transport are linked. In the past, schools and public transport have been identified separately, but now all four modes have been brought together in one scheme, resulting in costs decreasing by 20 to 25 per cent. on £30,000. Passenger numbers have increased, and, not unnaturally, bus fares have come down.
Basically, we face four rather crude options with regard to rail. First, we could concrete over the rail lines and replace the system with coaches. If coaches replaced rail, they would quickly spread on to existing roads. The

burden of the congestion of coaches on other roads would be intolerable and an environmental disaster. I therefore reject that option.
The other extreme, as apparenty advocated by the Opposition Front Bench, is to have massive Socialist railway investment on principle, regardless of whether it is economically justified. I reject that idea. A limited amount of money is available to be spent on investment, with choices such as education, the NHS, defence and job creation. Any investment in a training organisation must be serviced. It is a burden on any organisation to be saddled with unnecessary debt and interest costs from unnecessary investment. It takes no account of the available resources. I reject that option.
Thirdly, we can cut the railway system severely until it is profitable without support. It is true that financial help can be given to those less able through their own resources to travel and to choose their mode of travel. That is not a realistic way to maintain a railway system. It would have an immensely damaging effect on rural communities, because a successful trunk rail route requires feeder services. In 1981, 39 per cent. of all households had no car. A large proportion of the 9 million pensioners no longer drive or have never learned to drive. In 1982, more than 13 million young people were below the minimum legal age for driving a car. Therefore, many millions are heavily dependent on public transport for their mobility.
The railbus has possibilities, but studies have shown that fewer than half former rail users switched to a substitute after their line had been closed. According to Hillman and Whalley in their Policy Studies Institute paper of 1980, bus services were found to be slower, less frequent, reliable and comfortable than trains. At the general election, we promised
no programme of major route closures.
That, at least, should give the railways the confidence to innovate.
The fourth option is to maintain roughly the present network with a worthwhile and cost-effective investment. A successful railway should be efficient, reliable, clean, punctual and good value for the transport user. It should put the user ahead of the provider. It needs to meet the challenge of the 20th century, which means competition in transport.
The competition from coaches and private motoring led British Rail to increase its fares by the lowest level for 11 years—5·5 to 6·5 per cent. In the 1983 corporate plan, BR forecast a reduction in the central Government PSO requirement to £635 million by 1988 at last year's prices. The Government have asked BR to introduce their reductions two years earlier, which will be a challenge to rail staff at all levels. It is too popular to knock BR. BR runs more trains at over 100 miles per hour than any other railway in the world.
BR was an amorphous mass, over-large and unwieldy. My right hon. Friend referred to the sector directors in charge of marketing, standards of service, costs and so on. The great advantage is that each sector director can challenge the costs attributed to him. Is the service cost-effective? The 1983 BR plan advocated a £200 million reduction in taxpayers' support during the next five years, in addition to a significant increase in investment, concentrated on projects with a high yield. That means, for example, radio signalling, level crossings, the replacement of older rolling stock built in the 1950s and so on.
Equally important to many local communities has been the opening and reopening of stations, including the first new station in south Wales since 1942. Twelve new stations have been opened since 1979 and 19 reopened. Last October, for the first time ever, the BR chairman was given clear and comprehensive statements on Government objectives.
Looking at the railway network, it is right to consider the many rural communities. There is no policy for major route closures. The new, lightweight rolling stock between, for example, Ipswich and Lowestoft with radio signalling is one way in which the Government's policy will be implemented. The inter-city system has become increasingly successful since 1977 and has shown itself commercially viable.
I and other hon. Members are awaiting BR's review, especially on any decision that will help to achieve north-east electrification. That depends on BR producing a satisfactory prospectus for the inter-city sector. Electrification is in progress elsewhere on 184 route miles at a cost of £170 million. The electrification programme gives an internal rate of return of 11 per cent.
My right hon. Friend said that investment in BR is rising. It will reach £330 million this year, which is £50 million up on last year. That means that the external financing limit will be at exactly the same level as that requested by BR.
Overtime among rail employees remains a source of concern. It is flying directly against the industry for some railway conveners to urge no more productivity. The unions have lodged a claim for a substantial increase in pay and a reduction in working time. They must first implement the efficiency measures agreed in outline as long ago as August 1981. Only two of the six key points—variable rostering and open stations—are in operation. The sooner the other four are implemented, the healthier the industry will be. They include the phasing out of guards on some freight and passenger trains——

Mr. Prescott: More unemployment.

Mr. Gregory: The secondary picketing in Yorkshire and elsewhere on 28 February in connection with GCHQ, the wildcat strikes by ASLEF at Kings Cross and the left-wing political agitators in the coal dispute do not help the interests of our great industry.

Mr. Prescott: What would the hon. Gentleman know about that?

Mr. Gregory: The annual rate of improvement for train crews was 3·1 per cent. last year. We must encourage greater initiatives by management. There should be an extension of the experiment of telephones on trains, such as on the London-Bristol line, a trolley service for beverages, food and newspapers and some catering on all routes between major conurbations, including vending machines. Despite an income of £24 million last year, train catering made a loss of £4·9 million.
Decentralised management, continued cost reduction, better labour relations and an improved customer service will win a viable future for the railway industry. Therefore, I urge the House to support the amendment.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I promise not to range as widely as the hon.

Member for York (Mr. Gregory). I appreciate that another hon. Member has been waiting for as long as I have to speak.
I shall confine my remarks to the coastal shipping element of the British maritime industry. We have witnessed and experienced a history of failures and inadequacies in this area of maritime transport policies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) referred to the decline in the British merchant trading fleet. It is a massive and debilitating decline. In 1979 there were about 1,200 British owned and registered ships, and we now have fewer than 750 vessels. A third have been broken up, tied up, sold off or transferred, and the prospects are worsening weekly. The General Council of British Shipping recently forecast that during the next year or so the British merchant fleet would be down to fewer than 600 vessels, and that by 1986 we would have only about 400 ships left in international trade.
There are several reasons for the decline. Some of them are outwith the control of the Government, but a change in Government policy could arrest that decline, particularly in the very important area of domestic shipping. Other countries, such as France, Greece, Norway and West Germany provide positive support for their coastal shipping industries. Our Government simply offer the litany of free competition. We know that other Governments offer homilies on the need for free competition, but they do not practise what they preach or seek to preach.
I am not for one moment saying that the Government have stood idly by and watched the British maritime transport industry decline — they have helped that decline with the Budget proposals. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has withdrawn free depreciation and ended the tax relief on overseas earnings. The latter will badly harm the incomes of officers and crews of British vessels in the international sector.
The incentives to reinvest in the industry have largely disappeared. So, too, has the competitiveness of British shipping. It has always been difficult to attempt to compete against flags-of-convenience shipping, with its moorings in tax havens and its systematic and often brutal exploitation of Third world seamen.
The position today is far worse. In terms of competitiveness, Britain has slipped from being on almost equal terms with other European nations to a position at the bottom of the league. This country needs a sensible maritime transport policy. If that is not brought about, the "Red Duster" will become an extremely rare sight on the oceans of the world. It will become a collector's item. There is a thought for a maritime nation.
Most maritime nations have some publicly owned shipping operations. Most maritime nations recognise the importance of their coastal shipping and seek to integrate it with their land-based transport system. Here in Britain, however, the Government allow a third of coastal shipping and fully 50 per cent. of our offshore supply shipping services to be run by foreign flag ships. It almost seems as though the Government are happy with this state of affairs.
Many of our maritime communities suffer as a result of the Government's lack of concern for the coastal shipping and offshore supply industries. The National Union of Seamen and AUEW-TASS recently produced a report on those two sectors. I am not a member of either union, but I commend that report to the House as it clearly shows the


extent to which British policy over a period has been at odds with that of other nations, and it spells out the consequence of that. It states:
In mid-1968 according to the Rochdale Report, there were well over a hundred shipowners in the Coasting and Short Sea Tramp Sector, with nearly 700 vessels comprising over one million gross registered tons (grt.) By 1983 this was down to less than 20 owners with just over 150 vessels comprising under 300,000 grt. In 15 years, 80 per cent. of owners, and 80 per cent. of vessels and 70 per cent. of tonnage have disappeared.
Almost all the major maritime nations, including France, West Germany, Italy, Greece, Japan and the United States, reserve coastal trade for their own vessels under a system known as cabotage. Britain is the odd man out. Although we do not allow other countries to operate within our railway system, and we do not allow foreign lorries to pick up and deliver goods within this country, we allow foreign vessels to trade between British ports at will. That is an absurdity.
The report claims that about 30 vessels would be needed to replace the foreign ships involved in our coastal trade, providing about 1,000 jobs for British seafarers. It surely makes sense to transport British cargo around the British coast in British ships crewed by British personnel.
The same circumstance obtain in the United Kingdom offshore supply industry, in which half of the 180 or so vessels are foreign owned and crewed.
We do not have free competition in those two sectors. British vessels are not allowed to operate in the Norwegian, West German or United States' sectors. The Government's concept of free competition is of considerable benefit to other maritime nations, but of little or no help to those sectors of British maritime industry. The decline of our industry bears witness to a disastrous record. The people in our shipping and shipbuilding industry deserve much more from the Government.

Mr. Simon Coombs: It is sad that we should begin this new series of sittings on such a negative note. The Opposition motion says nothing about the good news from British Rail in the past few days. It takes no account of the aggressive attitude of the National Bus Company and municipal operators in the bus industry.
The motion also says nothing about the good news on motorway construction and repair, which the Opposition spokesman described as a patchwork quilt. If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) went to see the 70 miles of motorway renewed every year he would realise what a good job is being done for the benefit of the travelling public. Bypasses and many other developments have been mentioned. There is a great deal of good to be said in this debate. It is a shame that we have not heard it from the Opposition.
I want to concentrate on two issues. First, there is the plight of the disabled motorist faced with the tightening up of the regulations which affect those entitled to a disabled parking badge. In the past there was monstrous abuse of the orange badge system by able-bodied people, who used badges to get free parking in town centres. The Government rightly tackled that abuse, but I believe that they went too far — even though they enjoyed the support of organisations for the disabled — with the

result that many disabled people now simply cannot get an orange badge even though they are demonstrably in need of one.
In my own constituency—and there must be many similar cases in other constituencies—a pregnant woman whose legs had been amputated above the knee has been denied an orange badge. People suffering from agoraphobia—who if they cannot keep a car parked in sight while they are doing their shopping are likely to have an attack and run into the road, causing danger to themselves and to motorists — have been denied the badge. Only last week I visited a man suffering from arthritis. He was barely able to walk from one side of his kitchen to the other to get a pencil to write down his name and address, but he, too, had been denied an orange badge under the new regulations.
I support the Government in their aim of removing the abuse, but I cannot sympathise with a scheme which denies to those who are in need the chance to have a badge. I urge the Government to reconsider the degree of flexibility, ensuring that the disabled have a right of appeal—if necessary, a right of appeal to the Minister. I also urge them to consider introducing photographic passes so that it can be shown that the disabled person is the one who is using the car.
I should have liked to devote many minutes to that all-important subject. I regret any apparent discourtesy to the many disabled people in my constituency and elsewhere who have written to me on this subject and begged me to raise the matter in the House, but time is short, and I also wish to refer to British Rail Engineering Ltd., which is the largest employer in my constituency.
We debated BREL in January. At that time there was a threat of large-scale redundancies throughout the United Kingdom, and particularly in the rail works in my constituency. A figure of 1,200 redundancies has been put forward by the management of BREL as being likely, on current trends, to materialise by the end of the year.
The works fell into a mood of gloom, despair and despondency. However, within a few days the management gave us the welcome news that the redundancies had been staved off for the time being. Work had been diverted from other works and found from elsewhere to enable the options to be kept open. The management of British Rail Engineering Ltd. had done what I had asked it to do. However, the effect on the morale of the work force had been severe. I appeal to the management not to indulge in creating a see-saw effect, threatening the worst and then drawing back from the abyss. It has been doing that for years, and it is not good for man management.
Swindon is now a rundown repair and refurbishment centre, but it is capable of better things. The works are capable of new build, of producing new rolling stock and new locomotives, if the investment is provided. Swindon could also serve the west country as a regional repair and refurbishment centre. It is absurd that if a 125 engine breaks down 30 yards from the Swindon works it has to be towed to Derby to be repaired. That cannot make sense. If we want cost-effectiveness, we should look for it in areas such as that. Swindon has a pool of skilled labour and a tradition of high-class engineering. It would be a tragedy if the British Rail report ignored those facts and insisted upon some option which led to a severing of the connection between Swindon and the railway engineering industry.
I hope that I have been able to give sufficient weight to the two issues that have caused great anxiety in my constituency. With a few honourable exceptions, such as the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), the Opposition have done nothing to contribute to the debate. There has been a negative attack on what remains a successful tackling of the problems of transport. It is not sensible for the Labour party to follow a policy of saying, "If it moves nationalise it, and if it still moves chuck public money at it." That is the type of absurdity that will condemn the Labour party to perpetual opposition.

Mr. Peter Snape: I intend, if time allows me, to return to some of the points made by the hon. Members for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) and for York (Mr. Gregory) but I should like to start by dealing with a slightly less controversial aspect of the debate and put a couple of questions to the Minister. It is no secret—the Secretary of State is extremely proud of the fact—that the Government intend to privatise British Airways some time in the future. The Government have not told us today when that decision will be made. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman, in characteristic fashion, has virtually handed that decision over to the Civil Aviation Authority, although it is an issue for Government transport policy.
The right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) referred to his dislike of private monopoly. His remarks could be applied to a privatised British Airways, bearing in mind the approach of the Department of Transport. The evidence is that the privatisation will occur later rather than sooner, but we should be grateful if the Minister would tell us of the Government's intentions and say to what extent he acknowledges that the Government have to some extent juggled the figures to paint a rosier financial picture of British Airways, no doubt with the intention of paving the way for privatisation.
Evidence of fiddling around with British Airways' accounts has been presented by one of its commercial rivals. Sir Adam Thomson, the chairman of British Caledonian, strongly believes that there has been rigging of BA's finances. He and the Opposition would welcome some comment on that from the Minister. British Caledonian believes that unleashing a privatised British Airways of its present size would be detrimental to its prospects. British Caledonian has said publicly that there should be a transfer of routes between the two airlines. What is the Government's view on that? Would such a transfer need legislation — which, presumably, would have to be debated in the House?
Another less controversial aspect of today's debate is the Government's airports policy, if one exists. It appears that the Government have no real policy on British airports. It might be controversial of me to say so, but I believe that both sides of the House acknowledge that there is some excess capacity and that, although every municipally owned airport likes to call itself international, there is a limit to the amount of international traffic around and the privatisation of the British Airports Authority is likely to reduce even further any prospect of an overall countrywide airports policy.
The threat of privatisation is already causing concern to the British Airports Authority. It has desperately tried to find out when privatisation will take place, whether the existing BAA airports will be kept together or split up, and if they are split up who will be the lucky person who

collects the Heathrow jackpot. When the Government carry on with their sad and undemocratic policy to abolish the metropolitan county councils, what will happen to airports such as Manchester, which is run successfully by a joint committee of city and county council? Are we to have yet another quango from that former quango hater, the Secretary of State for Transport, which presumably would be created in order to maintain municipal airports which are at present—I hope all hon. Members would acknowledge—run extremely efficiently?
In today's debate, more than one Conservative Member has said that Labour Members in particular have been more concerned with railway matters. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris), in a characteristically thoughtful speech, warned us of the dangers of that approach. He said that we should have concentrated more on buses and less on railways. Indeed, he repeated the phrase that I first heard from the late Anthony Crosland—that the railways were primarily in the business of running round the middle classes and that Labour Members ought to be more concerned with bus services because more working-class people would be inclined to use them. I do not subscribe to that view. In the past, the number of middle-class commuters probably exceeded any others because of the travel-to-work pattern which went back to the 1930s, but that element of trave has diminished, or has certainly moved towards a more equal ratio than in the past.
Like many hon. Members, I well remember the fanfares that greeted the Transport Act 1980. The then Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) regarded it as a great leap forward. Indeed, on 1 July 1980, the day after the Bill received the Royal Assent his Department issued a press notice which said that the Act
would encourage new operators to come forward, especially in rural areas.
In February 1983, less than three years later, the Bus and Coach Council issued a document entitled "The country would miss the bus". On page 7 of that document it said:
The hopes of the legislators have not been realised, because the market has invariably not justified the commercial investment"—
that is, the hope of an improvement in rural bus services.
What happened in 1980 was exactly what was forecast by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and other Opposition spokesmen on transport. They said that there would be a rush of operators of express services anxious to take advantage of the relaxed licensing provisions. Within six months of the Transport Act, the National Bus Company had put up its express mileage by 43 per cent. In doing so it had to destroy its principle of cross-subsidisation. Within 12 months of the 1980 Act, route mileage operated overall by the National Bus Company declined by 8 per cent.
The Conservative party has objected to the terms of the Labour party's motion condemning the Government's transport policy. The Secretary of State asked us to justify the word "deterioration". I hope the House will acknowledge immediately that that was a deterioration in services caused by one single mistaken act in Government policy. I accept that at least some Conservative Members in 1980 felt that the passage of the Act would benefit the rural bus user, who is, after all, the sort of person in the forefront of Conservative party thinking. I have never quite understood why, but most Conservative Members


represent rural areas. Nevertheless, this Act of Parliament, which was passed by a Conservative Government, has had a severe impact on rural areas, contrary to what was forecast at the time the legislation came to pass.
Another aspect of the 1980 Transport Act that was greeted with some fanfares in the House, and elsewhere, was the clauses concerned with the principle of car sharing. I well remember that the Opposition were abused at that time for not recognising the great leap forward that was being made by the Conservative party in relaxing the regulations, and allowing the principle of car sharing. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the then Secretary of State for the Environment, had a regular column in the Department of Environment house magazine for car sharers to advertise. By the end of 1980, regrettably, there were only two advertisers, and by June 1981 there was only one advertiser.
However, it was better than that. One south coast resort newspaper decided in October 1980 that it would establish a new classified advertisements section for this purpose only. In one case, the advertiser wished to share his car only with an attractive woman. In another case, there was an appeal, doubtless from a supporter of the Conservative party, for a car sharer to share in the cost of running a Rolls-Royce. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) reflected earlier, perhaps the whole intention and thrust of the Government's transport policy was to enable us all to ride around in Rolls-Royces. I suppose that, to that extent at least, for one south coast resort they were successful.
If they were successful in that aspect of their policy, the Government were completely unsuccessful as far as the provisions of the Act are concerned. I readily acknowledge, as do all Opposition Members, that, as a result of the 1980 Act, at least some people managed to find a cheaper method of inter-city travel. I repeat that that was not the purpose of the Act, but that was what happened. As Freddie Laker—the one-time hero of the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister—found out, any such market, no matter how cheap the fares, is eventually finite, and there is only a limited number of customers to go round. The result of that Act for certain long-distance passengers is that between certain cities there has been a reduction in cost, and a greater choice in modes of travel. That has not taken place for people in the rural areas. Indeed, the reverse has happened. The introduction of express coach services has led to an equal reduction in the number of people using British Rail's inter-city services. An Act of Parliament is passed through the House with the best of intentions, but we end up—I suppose that this is the competition that the right hon. Gentleman is always so keen to encourage—with two nationalised industries in direct competition with each other, and with the user of public transport worse off.
The Secretary of State for Transport in his opening speech said that the Labour party's love was only for those who work in the transport industries, while the Conservative party's concern was for the consumers of the industries. He said that, in the 1950s, 35 per cent. of total available traffic went by road, and the figure now is over 60 per cent. I am not sure about his figures—even he is not always sure about his figures—but that was the general drift of his remarks.
There is no arguing with the view that that was the movement of traffic between modes of transport since the 1950s. It would be surprising if the movement were different, because we know that the Secretary of State, with many of his predecessors, makes no secret of his dislike of subsidies to the railway industry. He accused my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East and myself of being obsessed with providing more subsidies regardless of the likely choice of consumers. However, he did not mention—nor did any Conservative Member mention—the generally acknowledged fact that we pay a subsidy of more than £2,000 million a year towards company cars. The Secretary of State is in favour of that sort of transport. No one would object if he was the recipient of such largesse, but the vast majority of people have no such opportunity.
The Secretary of State shook his head when I mentioned £2,000 million, but I hope that he accepts that, on motor manufacturers' figures, more than 60 per cent. of new cars are sold to companies. They are subsidised, directly and occasionally indirectly, but the Secretary of State shows no concern about that.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the need for a modern and efficient railway service at low cost to the taxpayer. If he were a miracle worker—from our short acquaintance since October 1983 I fear that he is anything but that—the Opposition would sit back and wait to see whether such a system could work. However, Britain alone in the western world could not produce such a system. The fact that subsidies are an acknowledged part of the operation of public transport in every other developed nation leads me to believe that the Secretary of State is as inaccurate in that projection as he has been in every projection he has made since he took office.
An article in the Financial Times on 18 April said that the Secretary of State rarely compares like with like. Under the heading "How the juggernauts have taken their toll", Mr. Max Wallace concluded his article by stating:
It is evident that Nicholas Ridley has been successfully reeducated in the wonderland economics of highway investment over the nine short months since he left the Treasury.
The reason for that somewhat harsh conclusion is the damage caused to the Severn bridge. Most people would say that that damage is unlikely to have been caused by private cars. It was caused by heavy goods vehicles travelling between Wales and England. During the past few months there has been a movement of Welsh-finished steel off the railways because of a shortage of railway wagons—the hon. Members for Swindon and for York might wish to discuss this with the Secretary of State—on to the roads, which has increased the number of juggernauts using the Severn bridge.
Successive Governments, especially this one, have said that rail investment must show profitable returns, whereas road investment should come out of revenue. But the Severn bridge is different. Its costs are supposedly isolated and its funding is supposedly on the same basis as rail funding. However, last year, the engineers who designed the bridge 17 years ago—the consultants Mott, Hay and Anderson — identified a risk of failure because of a traffic jam. The engineers' remedy was to space the flow of bigger lorries and allow private cars unrestricted access. It would have been comparatively simple to have one lane for lorries and to restrict the number of lorries op the bridge at any time.
That did not meet with any favour from the right hon. Gentleman, who does not believe in subsidies. He has said that there will be an investigation into the prospect of a second Severn crossing. In Hansard on 1 November 1983 he said that he did not accept that the heavier lorries now on our roads are part of the problem in any sense. According to the right hon. Gentleman, there is no problem with heavy lorries, but the Severn bridge is about to have more money spent on it. That is not road hauliers' money, of course. Some areas of transport receive privileged treatment when it comes to subsidies.
The Government do not compare like with like. It is more profitable for the National Bus Company to run express services in direct competition with British Rail's inter-city services. Since the Budget, it has cost £67·50 for a road fund licence for a 45-seater coach. All that an operator must pay is the cost of the coach, the wages of the driver and £67·50 for a road fund licence. When one considers the infrastructure costs that British Rail must bear directly, it is not surprising that there has been a massive increase in long-distance coach travel and a consequential reduction in rail travel.
The Opposition stand by the motion. The Government ought to be condemned for their failure. There has been widespread deterioration in Britain's transport systems, and for that reason I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me in supporting our motion.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): The House has had an interesting, if rather short, debate on a very important subject. It is important because transport has a vital bearing on our costs as a trading nation and because it touches on the quality of life for us all. It has been a revealing debate, exposing hon. Members' interests, concerns and legitimate fears and I shall endeavour to respond constructively to what hon. Members have had to say.
The debate has also given us an insight into the Opposition's real beliefs. Their motion attacks the Government for their belief in
competition, profit, privatisation and reduced Government financial support.
That attack makes clear the philosophy of the Labour party—an acceptance of loss rather than profit, a desire for nationalisation rather than the spread of ownership and wealth, and an increase in the spending of taxpayers' money, as if that were some sort of virility symbol. We reject that philosophy and that policy, as well as the thinking that lies behind it. We have good reason to do so, because of the improvements that have already flowed from our policies.
I shall deal with the matters raised by hon. Members during the debate, but before that I shall deal with the most revealing and incredible part of the motion. It notes that
a policy of privatisaion and competition has reduced the United Kingdom's merchant fleet by 500 ships".
It has been a sunny Easter recess, but it is a little early to use a touch of the sun as an excuse for such a motion. There have been no changes in privatisation or competition that affect the United Kingdom's merchant fleet. The privatisation of Sealink has not yet been brought forward. There is no relationship between the Government's policies, in the way that they have been expressed and condemned by the Opposition, and the decline in the United Kingdom's merchant fleet.
We are very concerned about the decline in the United Kingdom's merchant fleet, which has been caused by world recession and the introduction of fewer, bigger ships, the protectionism of emergent nations and their unnecessary building. The decline has not been caused by the Government, as the Opposition well know. Their reference in the motion to a declining merchant fleet shows that they are living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said that the main threat to the United Kingdom's fleet comes from flags of convenience. I remind him that the United Kingdom flag is itself a flag of convenience. Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten that 43 per cent. of our fleet is there because of a flag of convenience? When he is so ready to condemn flags of convenience, will he bear in mind the effect of his condemnation on that 43 per cent. of the United Kingdom fleet?

Mr. Prescott: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Mitchell: I shall not give way, because of the amount of ground that I have to cover.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to Norwegian protectionism. Talks are continuing at official level. I expect progress and have invited the Norwegian Minister to visit London to discuss that progress.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) referred to the breadth of the coverage of the Department of Transport. I welcome that, but its only disadvantage is the wide area of aspects that may be raised. My right hon. Friend referred to railway investment and particularly to the south-east coast. The Victoria signalling system will be opened next Tuesday. In mid- May the direct non-stop Gatwick service from Victoria will start, providing improvements for air travellers and taking the pressure off some of the south coast towns.
My right hon. Friend drew attention to the tax problems of the shipping industry. I shall draw what he said to the attention of Treasury Ministers. He also warned the House against the danger of privatisation leading to a private monopoly. As I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will, I shall take carefully into account his advice and comments in that direction.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) quarrels with the chairman of British Rail for allegedly preventing railwaymen from lobbying Members of Parliament for more investment. As the Government are not restricting British Rail's investment money, there is no point in lobbying Members of Parliament. It is for British Rail to propose what investment is wants, and for the Government to dispose. At the moment, apart from the east coast main line, we do not have in front of us any proposals for investment that are being held up by the Government.

Mr. Prescott: Only the east coast main line.

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman refers to just the east coast main line. I shall come back to it, but he knows perfectly well that we are waiting for the inter-city strategy, which we expect in the next few weeks.
The hon. Member for Carlisle was disturbed about bus substitution because it originated from the Serpell committee. I assure him that that was endorsed by the Select Committee on Transport, which referred to the need for guaranteed subsidised rail services. Therefore, let us at least put that into its context and not be worried in the way that the hon. Gentleman was. The hon. Gentleman


asked when lorry and road users would cover the costs which they incur through taxation. Road expenditure in 1982 was £3,300 million and the tax raised from road users was £6,400 million. Not only do they cover costs, but they cover much more than the expenditure on the roads.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris), in a thoughtful speech, underlined the Secretary of State's theme that transport is for the benefit of the customer, and illustrated the advantages of competition. He referred to widespread concern in other countries about railway losses. The House may be interested to know that so great are the losses in Japan that the Japanese have set up a commission of inquiry and have visited British Rail and the Department of Transport to discuss possible approaches to ways in which to cut their severe losses.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) is anxious to get heavy lorries out of city centres. I agree with him, but the answer is not in bans, but in bypasses. The London M25 is the biggest bypass in history. It will do a major amount to improve the lot of those who are concerned about heavy lorries in the centre of London. Section 8, which we are using vigorously as a means of environmental grant to encourage the moving of loads from road to rail, is now having a considerable impact in many routes. Heavy lorries and juggernaut traffic is being taken out of the villages and towns and is going on to the railways. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman supports that.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Sealink privatisation. From my own personal investigations I am satisfied that the ferries to the Isle of Wight will last until the new Sealink management has the opportunity of considering its future investment programme.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the building of Sealink vessels by Harland and Wolff. When I was on the Sealink vessel concerned, the management told me, "Yes, it was delayed. Yes, we did build vessels in other yards, but by God we go back to Harland and Wolff because they build so well." I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in being pleased at that.
The hon. Gentleman asked for assurances that Sealink services to the Isle of Wight and elsewhere will not be cut. For a long time Sealink has operated on a fully commercial remit. Therefore, there is no reason why a change to privatisation should have any effect on the services operated by the management. [Interruption.] British Rail gave Sealink a remit to act commercially, and that it has done. No doubt that is what the new owners will do as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) said that he was delighted at the ending of section 9 and saw it as the opportunity to go ahead with Falmouth's container base. I hope that he will not jump with joy too soon and assume that all the fences are down. Section 9 had become a sign of Government approval and a signal to investors that, perhaps, with abandonment, they could go ahead with any investment that involved a port development where section 9 approval had been given. Investors must now make their own independent judgment, and we shall have to see what happens.
My hon. Friend is worried by the Rayner scrutiny restricting ports developments. I understand his worry and concern. I have been involved in the problems that arose with the overtime limitations for customs at Great

Yarmouth. We were able to overcome those difficulties, and I hope that my hon. Friend will discuss with me any particular problems that arise in his own constituency.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) referred to the widespread concern, which I know exists, about the Settle-Carlisle railway line. I assure him that I and the Secretary of State are well aware of the widespread concern about the future of this line. It is now in the process of going through the various procedures that are laid down, as a result of which it will come to me and the Secretary of State for consideration in a quasi-judicial capacity.
At present, my mind is entirely open. I have no prejudices, but I intend to visit the line, to see exactly what is involved, to meet local people and to hear their views. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman. I give the same reassurance to the hon. Member for Carlisle, who insists on referring to this not as the Settle-Carlisle line, but as the Carlisle-Settle line. I understand his reasons.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool alleged that the Government had forced British Rail to withdraw investment proposals worth £600 million. Let me set the record right. Under this Government, British Rail has invested no less than £2,000 million in its future. The Government have rejected £30 million, and British Rail has withdrawn £300 million, some of which it has subsequently resubmitted. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get the whole thing in proportion. Some £2,000 million of investment has been made, and only £30 million has been rejected by the Government.
The hon. Gentleman charged the chairman of British Rail with being an agent provocateur. I willingly defend the chairman. I do it sincerely, as he is a railwayman through and through. He clearly intends to be his own man. No one knows better than Bob Reid how the railways should be run. He is not a Government puppet. All that the hon. Gentleman has done in raising that particular canard is to show how out of touch he is with the reality of British Rail.
The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) raised the issue of the Manchester ship canal and its future. I should be happy to meet him to consider whether there is any positive role that I can play in connection with the future of the system. He will appreciate that this matter crosses Departments, and I am not sure that I am the right Minister to be in the lead on this issue.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) wanted Ministers to listen to railwaymen. I assure him, as I have done before, that my door is open to him and to his fellow railway-sponsored Members of Parliament if they have particular points that they want to put to me and that they wish to have taken into account. I shall write to him on his technical question about concessionary fares in his constituency.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) asked when British Airways is to be privatised. The answer is some time in 1985. Steps to enable that to be achieved are proceeding smoothly. He asked about route transfers. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put that matter to the CAA for it to consider. It has shown the breadth of the evidence that it has received, but it has not come out with its conclusions, and it would be wrong for us to prejudge what it may have to say. The hon. Gentleman asked whether this needs legislation. How can he speculate about the contents of a


report that we have not received? How do we know whether the CAA will recommend anything that will require legislation?
I have covered many of the points that have been raised, and I shall write to hon. Members on any points which they feel I have missed. It is not enough to reject the Opposition's motion. We have a right to claim that things have improved, are improving and will continue to improve because of the Government's policies. I shall demonstrate that briefly with regard to three policy sectors—road, rail and air.
On road policy, competition has brought 700 new coach services with better and cheaper services than ever before. It now costs £12 for a return to Liverpool. I rang Victoria coach station today for that information. That is a sign of a massive improvement. Hon. Gentleman may laugh, but the customers are benefiting from that service. They praise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his predecessors for having made it possible under Conservative policies.
Some £2 billion has been invested in the railways since 1979, and the British Rail chairman expects a 40 per cent. increase in investment in the next three years. The constant attacks that have been made on railway management are something that I resent, as do many Members of Parliament and railwaymen. The Opposition's continual attacks are deplorable.
As to our policy on air liberalisation, the benefits of competition are plain for any Scottish Member, Manchester Member or anyone who uses the shuttle system to see and verify for themselves.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 247.

Division No. 251]
[10 pm


AYES


Anderson, Donald
Corbett, Robin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Craigen, J. M.


Ashdown, Paddy
Crowther, Stan


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Barnett, Guy
Cunningham, Dr John


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Beith, A. J.
Deakins, Eric


Bell, Stuart
Dewar, Donald


Benn, Tony
Dixon, Donald


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Dobson, Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Dormand, Jack


Blair, Anthony
Douglas, Dick


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dubs, Alfred


Boyes, Roland
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Eadie, Alex


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Eastham, Ken


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Ellis, Raymond


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Fatchett, Derek


Caborn, Richard
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Campbell, Ian
Fisher, Mark


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Forrester, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Foster, Derek


Clay, Robert
Foulkes, George


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Fraser, J, (Norwood)


Cohen, Harry
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Coleman, Donald
George, Bruce


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Godman, Dr Norman


Conlan, Bernard
Golding, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Gould, Bryan


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)





Harman, Ms Harriet
Park, George


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Parry, Robert


Haynes, Frank
Patchett, Terry


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Pendry, Tom


Heffer, Eric S.
Penhaligon, David


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Pike, Peter


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Howells, Geraint
Prescott, John


Hoyle, Douglas
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Redmond, M.


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Janner, Hon Greville
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


John, Brynmor
Robertson, George


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rogers, Allan


Kennedy, Charles
Rooker, J. W.


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Kirkwood, Archibald
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lambie, David
Sedgemore, Brian


Lamond, James
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Leadbitter, Ted
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Leighton, Ronald
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Mrs H.(W'hampt'n NE)


Litherland, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Skinner, Dennis


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


McCartney, Hugh
Snape, Peter


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Soley, Clive


McGuire, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Steel, Rt Hon David


McKelvey, William
Stott, Roger


McNamara, Kevin
Strang, Gavin


McTaggart, Robert
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


McWilliam, John
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Madden, Max
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Martin, Michael
Tinn, James


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Torney, Tom


Maxton, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Wareing, Robert


Meacher, Michael
Weetch, Ken


Meadowcroft, Michael
Welsh, Michael


Michie, William
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Mikardo, Ian
Wilson, Gordon


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Winnick, David


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)



Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tellers for the Ayes:


O'Neill, Martin
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. John Home Robertson.


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley





NOES


Ancram, Michael
Conway, Derek


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Coombs, Simon


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Cope, John


Baldry, Anthony
Cranborne, Viscount


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Body, Richard
Dicks, Terry


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Durant, Tony


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Farr, John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Favell, Anthony


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Fletcher, Alexander


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bryan, Sir Paul
Forman, Nigel


Buck, Sir Antony
Fox, Marcus


Budgen, Nick
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Freeman, Roger


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Gale, Roger


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Chapman, Sydney
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Clegg, Sir Walter
Goodlad, Alastair


Cockeram, Eric
Gorst, John


Colvin, Michael
Gow, Ian






Gower, Sir Raymond
Maude, Hon Francis


Gregory, Conal
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Grist, Ian
Mellor, David


Ground, Patrick
Merchant, Piers


Grylls, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gummer, John Selwyn
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Hanley, Jeremy
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hannam, John
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Moate, Roger


Harris, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Haselhurst, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Moore, John


Hawksley, Warren
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hayhoe, Barney
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hayward, Robert
Moynihan, Hon C.


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Murphy, Christopher


Heddle, John
Needham, Richard


Henderson, Barry
Nicholls, Patrick


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Norris, Steven


Hickmet, Richard
Onslow, Cranley


Hicks, Robert
Oppenheim, Philip


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hind, Kenneth
Osborn, Sir John


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Ottaway, Richard


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Page, John (Harrow W)


Holt, Richard
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hooson, Tom
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hordern, Peter
Parris, Matthew


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Pawsey, James


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Porter, Barry


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Powley, John


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Price, Sir David


Hunter, Andrew
Prior, Rt Hon James


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Renton, Tim


Jessel, Toby
Rhodes James, Robert


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Key, Robert
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Roe, Mrs Marion


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Rost, Peter


Knowles, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Knox, David
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lamont, Norman
Ryder, Richard


Latham, Michael
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lawler, Geoffrey
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lawrence, Ivan
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lester, Jim
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lightbown, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lilley, Peter
Silvester, Fred


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lord, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Luce, Richard
Speed, Keith


Lyell, Nicholas
Speller, Tony


McCrindle, Robert
Spencer, Derek


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Macfarlane, Neil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Squire, Robin


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maclean, David John
Steen, Anthony


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Stern, Michael


Madel, David
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Major, John
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Malins, Humfrey
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Maples, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Marlow, Antony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mates, Michael
Terlezki, Stefan


Mather, Carol
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter





Thompson, Donald (Calder v)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Warren, Kenneth


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Watson, John


Thornton, Malcolm
Watts, John


Thurnham, Peter
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Tracey, Richard
Wheeler, John


Trotter, Neville
Wilkinson, John


Twinn, Dr Ian
Winterton, Mrs Ann


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Winterton, Nicholas


Viggers, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Waddington, David
Woodcock, Michael


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Yeo, Tim


Waldegrave, Hon William
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Walden, George



Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Mr. David Hunt and Mr. Michael Neubert.


Wall, Sir Patrick



Waller, Gary

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 165.

Division No. 252]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Ancram, Michael
Gorst, John


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Gow, Ian


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Baldry, Anthony
Greenway, Harry


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gregory, Conal


Body, Richard
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bottomley, Peter
Grist, Ian


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Ground, Patrick


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Grylls, Michael


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gummer, John Selwyn


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hanley, Jeremy


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hannam, John


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bryan, Sir Paul
Harris, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Haselhurst, Alan


Budgen, Nick
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hawksley, Warren


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hayhoe, Barney


Chapman, Sydney
Hayward, Robert


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Heddle, John


Clegg, Sir Walter
Henderson, Barry


Cockeram, Eric
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Hickmet, Richard


Con way, Derek
Hicks, Robert


Coombs, Simon
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cope, John
Hind, Kenneth


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Dicks, Terry
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Dorrell, Stephen
Holt, Richard


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hooson, Tom


Durant, Tony
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Farr, John
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Favell, Anthony
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Fletcher, Alexander
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Fookes, Miss Janet
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Forman, Nigel
Hunt, John (Ravensboume)


Fox, Marcus
Hunter, Andrew


Franks, Cecil
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Freeman, Roger
Jessel, Toby


Gale, Roger
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Key, Robert


Goodhart, Sir Philip
King, Rt Hon Tom


Goodlad, Alastair
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)






Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knowles, Michael
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Knox, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lamont, Norman
Roe, Mrs Marion


Latham, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rost, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Rowe, Andrew


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lester, Jim
Ryder, Richard


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lightbown, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lilley, Peter
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lord, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Luce, Richard
Silvester, Fred


Lyell, Nicholas
Sims, Roger


McCrindle, Robert
Skeet, T. H. H.


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Macfarlane, Neil
Speed, Keith


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Speller, Tony


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Spencer, Derek


Maclean, David John
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Madel, David
Squire, Robin


Major, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Malins, Humfrey
Steen, Anthony


Maples, John
Stern, Michael


Marland, Paul
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Marlow, Antony
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Mather, Carol
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stradling Thomas, J.


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mellor, David
Terlezki, Stefan


Merchant, Piers
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Thornton, Malcolm


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Thurnham, Peter


Moate, Roger
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Monro, Sir Hector
Tracey, Richard


Montgomery, Fergus
Trotter, Neville


Moore, John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Viggers, Peter


Moynihan, Hon C.
Waddington, David


Murphy, Christopher
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Neubert, Michael
Waldegrave, Hon William


Nicholls, Patrick
Walden, George


Norris, Steven
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Onslow, Cranley
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Oppenheim, Philip
Wall, Sir Patrick


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Waller, Gary


Osborn, Sir John
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Ottaway, Richard
Warren, Kenneth


Page, John (Harrow W)
Watson, John


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Watts, John


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Parris, Matthew
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Pawsey, James
Wheeler, John


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Whitfield, John


Porter, Barry
Wilkinson, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Powley, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wood, Timothy


Price, Sir David
Woodcock, Michael


Prior, Rt Hon James
Yeo, Tim


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Renton, Tim



Rhodes James, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Archie Hamilton and Mr. Tim Sainsbury.


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas





NOES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Barron, Kevin


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Beckett, Mrs Margaret


Barnett, Guy
Beith, A. J.





Bell, Stuart
Kennedy, Charles


Benn, Tony
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Kirkwood, Archibald


Bermingham, Gerald
Lambie, David


Blair, Anthony
Lamond, James


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Leadbitter, Ted


Boyes, Roland
Leighton, Ronald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Litherland, Robert


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
McCartney, Hugh


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Caborn, Richard
McGuire, Michael


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Campbell, Ian
McKelvey, William


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McNamara, Kevin


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
McTaggart, Robert


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Madden, Max


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Clay, Robert
Martin, Michael


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cohen, Harry
Maxton, John


Coleman, Donald
Maynard, Miss Joan


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Meacher, Michael


Conlan, Bernard
Meadowcroft, Michael


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Michie, William


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Mikardo, Ian


Corbett, Robin
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Craigen, J. M.
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Crowther, Stan
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Cunningham, Dr John
O'Neill, Martin


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Park, George


Deakins, Eric
Parry, Robert


Dewar, Donald
Patchett, Terry


Dixon, Donald
Pendry, Tom


Dobson, Frank
Penhaligon, David


Dormand, Jack
Pike, Peter


Douglas, Dick
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dubs, Alfred
Prescott, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Radice, Giles


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Randall, Stuart


Eadie, Alex
Redmond, M.


Eastham, Ken
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Ellis, Raymond
Robertson, George


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Rogers, Allan


Fatchett, Derek
Rooker, J. W.


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Fisher, Mark
Sedgemore, Brian


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Forrester, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Foster, Derek
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Foulkes, George
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Skinner, Dennis


George, Bruce
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Godman, Dr Norman
Snape, Peter


Golding, John
Soley, Clive


Gould, Bryan
Spearing, Nigel


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Stott, Roger


Harman, Ms Harriet
Strang, Gavin


Haynes, Frank
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Heffer, Eric S.
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Home Robertson, John
Tinn, James


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Torney, Tom


Howells, Geraint
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hoyle, Douglas
Wareing, Robert


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Weetch, Ken


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Welsh, Michael


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Janner, Hon Greville
Wilson, Gordon


John, Brynmor
Winnick, David


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Wrigglesworth, Ian






Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr. John McWilliam and Mr. Austin Mitchell.


Tellers for the Noes:

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House welcomes the steps Her Majesty's Government is taking to improve the transport system of the United Kingdom.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Trade Union Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. — [Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Orders of the Day — Trade Union Bill

Order for Third Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Speaker: I must tell the House that I have not selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the leader of the Liberal party.

Mr. King: This is, I hope, the final stage of the Bill in this House. It was carried on Second Reading by a majority of 169. I recognise that we may not have the same majority today as I believe that my earlier expectations will be fulfilled. When asked what I thought would be the attitude of the Liberals and Social Democrats, I made the rash forecast that they would probably vote for Second Reading and against Third Reading. I intend to claim a little money from some of my hon. Friends, as I believe that that prediction will prove to be correct.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Wait and see.

Mr. King: I do not know how else the alliance can explain the force of its reasoned amendment. Nevertheless, we shall wait and see how the voting goes on this occasion. Naturally, I hope that alliance Members will stick to the consistency of their Second Reading vote.
The Bill has been very fully considered by the House. It has received 120 hours consideration—more than 100 hours in Committee. Notwithstanding the shouts of outrage that preceded the Bill and accompanied its earlier stages, the House will note that the Bill has completed its stages in this House without a guillotine and without any serious change in content. There has been a lot of talk, but I am sure that my hon. Friends who had the pleasure of serving on the Committee will agree that we heard precious little convincing argument and few convincing reasons for changing the content of the Bill. Anyone who studies the provisions in the Bill will understand why that was so. In the final analysis, it is difficult — as the Opposition have found—to argue against democracy and giving the members of a trade union a proper say in the activities of the leadership of their union and a right to decide whether the union should take strike action. Members of a trade union have rights, and the Bill seeks to ensure that they should be able to enjoy them.

Mr. David Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. King: I wish to speak briefly, so I shall not give way.
Opposition Members failed to persuade any member of the Committee who was of a fair and impartial frame of mind—I say that in as fair and independent a spirit as I can — that there was any reason why trade union members should not have the right to a fair and secret ballot to elect the principal executive committee of their union or why they should not be consulted before strike action was taken. Can there ever have been a time when

it would have been more difficult to argue that point? I doubt whether any Opposition Member would seek to argue it now.
Who can seriously deny the justice of a periodic ballot on the political fund? Could anyone seriously maintain that the result of one ballot held 70 years ago—the truth has now been revealed—is adequate justification for the existence of a political fund? Who could seriously maintain that if a political fund is to have credibility and validity, it will not be in a much stronger position if it is supported by a vote of the membership of the union taken more recently than 70 years ago?
On Second Reading, I said:
It is still the case that most union leaders are elected by votes cast, often by a show of hands, at branch meetings held away from the workplace, despite all the evidence"—
reinforced by Donovan—
that branch meetings on average are attended only rarely by more than 7 per cent. of members.
It is still the case that some of the largest trade unions use the block vote system of election despite all the evidence that the effect is to distort the result of elections and to hide the fact that
the votes of six people can be converted into a card vote of 300, 400 or 1,000.
It is still the case that most unions refuse to hold secret ballots before strikes and rely on rowdy open-air meetings which are a travesty of democracy."—[Official Report, 8 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 157–58.]
The House knows from recent debates on the Bill that, in accordance with the manifesto, I had discussions on these matters with representatives of the Employment Policy and Organisation Committee of the TUC. The House will know that, in addition to our discussions on the political levy, very strong representations were made to me that we should amend parts of the Bill in the interests of a better understanding with the trade union movement.
I do not apologise for not being and not having been prepared to change the essential elements of the Bill. I know that I carry all of my right hon. and hon Friends with me when I say that I am not prepared to sacrifice the proper and democratic rights of union members. Opposition Members have another difficulty. I pay credit to their endurance in Committee and on Report, although I can give no credit to the quality of their arguments. They tried to establish that the Bill represents a massive interference or upheaval in the existing rules and regulations that guide and bind the conduct of trade unions. It is designed merely to establish the elementary principles of secret ballots and democracy which should be found in all unions and is already welcome and found in some. It is designed to establish those minimum standards within, as far as possible, the existing rules and procedures of trades unions.
The House will know that the Bill represents the third step in our step-by-step approach towards what we believe is a fair and proper balance in the rights and responsibilities of trade unions and the circumstances of their members. We have already taken steps to protect an individual's rights if he wishes not to join a union. The full impact of the second step that we have taken in regard to the closed shop has yet to take effect, but, from November this year, no closed shop will enjoy legal protection unless it is supported by the overwhelming majority of those who work in it. That will be a major step forward in the protection of individual rights. We have also taken action clearly to define the rights of pickets and the limits of secondary action. The Bill sets out the further stages which


define the rights that we believe belong to trade union members and establishes what we believe is a fairer balance in those rights and responsibilities.
I do not doubt that some Opposition Members will try to argue that the Bill represents an assault on basic trade union freedoms and rights. It represents some assault on some trade union leaders who have exercised power without reference to their membership — often to the great disadvantage of that membership and the trade union movement. I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) will listen to this point instead of mimicking away in a rather frivolous way, as I think he will understand it. Does any Opposition Member think that what is happening at the moment is helpful to the image of the trade union movement? Does anyone think that there is anything in this Bill which is half as damaging to the good name of proper and responsible trade unionism as the type of behaviour that we are seeing throughout the country and which is being condoned by trade union leaders?
I hope that more trade union leaders and the party that claims the closest affiliation with the trade union movement will play a rather more active part in propagating a sensible balance of responsibility and respect for the rule of law and a recognition of the rights of individuals within trade unions who choose to work, as is illustrated by the present situation. That should be respected and encouraged. Those trade unions which accept the spirit of the legislation should recognise that in the long run they have much to gain and little to fear from a public recognition that their leadership is properly and democratically elected in a secret ballot and that industrial action is taken only with the full support of their members properly established through a secret ballot. That will command far greater credibility and respect and in the long run be far better for union members than the sort of behaviour that we see now and that Labour Members are seeking to support.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: How often will Mr. Scargill have to be re-elected under this legislation?

Mr. King: He will have to come up for election every five years as a principal member of the executive committee with a casting vote, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He may like to check that, but he must distinguish between the structure of different trade unions.
In the final analysis—this has come clearly out of the meetings in Sheffield — the people who have the vote will determine the conduct of the trade union. We have thought about the matter carefully. It is the people who vote who finally determine the policy of their trade union, and the principal executive committee must be properly elected. It is in the interests of the trade unions and their authority that they are seen to be properly elected.
The Bill, the third step in our step-by-step approach, contains provisions which will improve the position of trade unions. Above all, it will give the unions back to their members. As I said on Second Reading, I am confident because I know that every proposal in the Bill is not some new startling revelation, never before realised by the trade union movement. Each of the proposals is already part of the constitution and practice of those trade unions which recognise the importance of more efficient

democratic procedures. We are seeking to bring the rest of the trade union movement up to the better standards of those which adopt those principles.
The Bill has illustrated clearly the gulf between the Government's view — which opinion polls show is widely shared in the country — and the Opposition's view. The Labour Opposition talk about the voluntary approach, but they believe, and showed during their term in office, that the role of law was to bolster the power of trade unions even against their members. We believe that the law should protect the whole community — employers, employees, union members and non-union members alike — from the abuse of industrial power. The Bill makes a further important step forward in getting that balance right. I have great pleasure in commending it to the House.

Mr. John Smith: The Secretary of State referred to the Second Reading, and to the consideration that has taken place since then, but hon. Members will remember that one very important incident is what took place at GCHQ. For a Secretary of State, in a Government who, by a unilateral act, deprived peaceful, law-abiding civil servants of the right to be members of a trade union, to talk about abuse of power, and to suggest that that happens only on this side of the House, shows what a one-sided view the Secretary of State has about the matter. He knows perfectly well that the present Government, without saying anything about the matter when they were elected, proceeded unilaterally to deprive trade unionists of an important civil right on that occasion, yet they present the Opposition and the trade unions as anti-democratic and somehow interested in the abuse of power. There has not been an action so redolent of anti-trade union hostility, and of the capricious use of arbitrary power, in the history of this country since the last war in regard to industrial relations matters.
It is, of course, the knowledge that this is the Government who unilaterally deprived trade unionists of their rights at GCHQ which gives the lie to the notion that somehow this is a Bill to advance the rights and interests of trade union members. The Government like to portray the leaders of the trade union movement as some sort of power-crazy barons who do not have to maintain their position in power by regular elections and who are there without any democratic backing or structure. I say, as I said to the Secretary of State on Second Reading — I think it bears saying again — that the trade union movement needs no lessons in democracy from the Conservative party, a party which has not shown itself addicted to the practices of democracy in its own internal functioning, and is not well placed to lecture others about it.
Indeed, if democracy and the election of people to positions regularly every five years is such a good idea, why is it confined to those organisations which are classified as trade unions by the certification officer? Why does not the National Farmers Union get a touch of this democracy, for example? As Conservative Members know, if the Bill were extended to cover the NFU, there would be a great cry from the NFU: "What business is it of yours to tell us how we run our affairs?". The Government would listen to that cry very carefully.
What the House must know is that this is not some way of inducing democracy in trade unions but that the


Government were put in an awkward situation when an amendment was proposed in Committee, and on Report, which stated that, if trade unions, under the very system the Government proposed, said that they did not want the Government's proposals for the constitution, they should be allowed to vote against them. What did the Government do? A Government that wanted trade unions to be controlled by the members could have given trade unions, on a ballot of all their members, the right to opt out of this legislation if they wanted to do so. But the Government voted that down, and used their massive majority in the House to deny that right to trade union members. That one act puts paid to the notion that the Bill is concerned with giving rights to trade union members.

Mr. Winnick: When it comes to a lack of democracy, is there not yet another illustration of what is happening in the real world? What sort of democracy is there for the people who work on the The Observer, the journalists and other staff, when their paper is being sold over their heads, simply because the present owners, Lonrho, do not like an article carried by the editor? Why should Mr. Maxwell be allowed to take over the newspaper without any consultation with the staff? Is that not an illustration of a lack of democracy which exists in our society?

Mr. Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the selective use of certain principles by the Government. The Government are all for democracy when it comes to the internal workings of trade unions, but they are totally against any democracy at the work place. This is so not only in the case of The Observer, although my hon. Friend's point is well taken. It applies also to the Vredeling proposals, where the Government threatened to veto for the entire European Community elementary steps towards industrial democracy at the work place.
Why is democracy good for trade unions but bad for employers? Why are the Government so anxious to confer rights upon trade unionists in their capacity and function within the union, but consistently deny them rights in their relationships with employers? The answer is that they are for employers and against trade unions. That is the beginning and end of our understanding of the wisdom of this part of the Bill.
The Secretary of State skipped quickly over part II, which relates to pre-strike ballots, and made an oblique reference to the miners' strike. He knows as well as anyone that if the Bill were law today it would make no difference to the strike. The only effect that it would have would be to entitle the National Coal Board to sue the National Union of Mineworkers for damages, and since the NCB has already made it clear that it will not do that under the Employment Acts 1980 and 1982, what difference would this Bill have made? It is completely irrelevant, even for the Government's purposes, and I am surprised that the Secretary of State was so politically stupid as to bring the miners' strike into this debate. He skipped over it quickly, but he knows that the Bill, which he said would make such a difference to British industrial relations, would make no difference to a strike which he tried, for reasons of political prejudice, to bring into the debate.
When one examines part II, one wonders why the Conservative contribution to industrial relations will be to deprive people on official strike of legal protection but to confer it upon people on unofficial strike. That must strike

us as odd. Not only do we give a practical incentive to workers in dispute to go on unofficial strike, but we confer special legal privileges on them which we deny to people on official strike. One need not be too bright — even Conservative Members should recognise it—to work out that the result will be the most massive practical and legal encouragement to unofficial strikes in the history of industrial relations.
Part III reveals the real wickedness of the Government. It has nothing to do with industrial relations but has much to do with politics and with the Conservative party's desire to minimise the financial resources that the Labour party has at its disposal in conducting its work as a party and in carrying out its functions as Her Majesty's official Opposition. The Conservatives have decided that it would be a clever idea to put the Labour party in difficulty with the trade unions by causing ballots to be held between now and the next general election in all trade unions as to whether they continue to have political funds. Their hope is clear: that some trade unions will decide not to continue their political funds. They say, "What is wrong with that? Should not people be asked regularly about the contributions made by them or in their name to a political party?"
That would be a convincing reason if the Conservative party applied the principle generally. If the Secretary of State says to me, as I believe he did, "Why should not trade union members be asked regularly whether they wish to contribute to a political party?", I am entitled to ask him, "Why should not shareholders of a company be asked regularly whether they want the assets of the company to be contributed to a political party?" Will the right hon. Gentleman get to his feet now and tell me the difference between trade union members being asked regularly and shareholders of a company being asked regularly?

Mr. Tom King: The difference is that shareholders must be asked every year whether they wish contributions to be made. What is more, the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows—this argument is not new, because we have been over the ground in Committee—that the directors of a company are liable to criminal law if they fail to disclose to their shareholders that such a donation has been made. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot be suggesting that trade unions should be under a similar obligation.

Mr. Smith: The Secretary of State is right. We went over the matter at length in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman was not there for most of the time, so this is all new to him. That is why it is important that he hears it from me, as he did not before. It is important that he understands these matters. To suggest that there is a parallel in the law between trade unions and companies is ridiculous. I shall tell the Secretary of State what the legal position is at the moment. The trade unions are the only organisations in this country that have to create a separate political fund when they want to contribute to political organisations. Every other organisation, whether a limited company or a voluntary society, can use its general fund for political purposes.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Smith: I shall not give way just now, as I should like to educate the Secretary of State.
Trade unions are the only organisations specially selected to be required to have a political fund. That political fund can be established only by a ballot of all the members of the organisation, and every single member can opt out of that contribution. No other organisation in British society has been so specially regulated and controlled by law — trade unions have been thus controlled for 71 years, since the Trade Union Act 1913.
Over that whole period, the only restriction introduced for companies was that they have to report every donation of over £200 in the annual accounts the year after they make it. All they have to do is disclose. To pretend that somehow that obligation to disclose is parallel with a legal requirement to acquire the consent of the membership and to allow each member to dissent shows that the Secretary of State has no capacity to understand the elementary rules of logic, never mind the elementary principles of language.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman deal with two points? First, does he apply the same logic to, for example, the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society, which strikes me as an exact parallel with companies? Secondly, will he deal with the problem that I faced when I voted for the general secretary of my trade union? I asked why he did not state on the trade union membership card that there was a political levy. The reply that I received said that that would be discrimination, as it would show which members were paying and which were not. I looked at my card and found that written on it by hand, in red ink, were the words, "excluding political levy". Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman deal with both points?

Mr. Smith: I do not know what those points have to do with the debate, but I am happy to offer my thoughts on them. I have not studied the constitution of the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society, but, as Ministers sometimes say, if the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me about it, I shall be glad to look into that.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I think that he is pretending to be a trade unionist for the purposes of his intervention. He should take up that matter with his trade union. If he is still worried about it, he should have a chat with the Secretary of State, who assured some doubting Conservative Members that that was all taken care of as a result of his new agreement with the TUC. The hon. Gentleman should not complain to me, because the Secretary of State is satisfied about all that. He has an agreement with the TUC that will deal with that worry, so the hon. Gentleman should not ask me that question. He should ask the Secretary of State. His answer will be that it is all covered by the deal that he has made with the TUC. Far be it from me to cause disharmony in any quarter on that matter.

Mr. Tom King: I take it from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said that he is putting the full authority of his position, with all his right hon. and hon. Friends, behind ensuring that every trade union member has the free and effective right of choice of contracting out if he does not wish to pay the political levy. That is the position of the TUC. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman support it?

Mr. Smith: I do not know why I am asked to give special endorsement to the legislative requirements of the Trade Union Act 1913, which has been on the statute book for 71 years, and somehow has to be revalidated by special endorsement. I am flattered that I have the capacity to do that, but I must decline the opportunity to state the obvious again and again. The Secretary of State knows full well that the TUC has agreed to require union members to observe the requirements of the statute. I hope that the Secretary of State will join me in saying to some other people, including his colleagues in the Government, that it is wrong that people should be deprived of their rights as those at GCHQ were.
Why must trade unionists observe the law scrupulously while the Government unilaterally change the law and skip out of their obligations any time they choose? What example is it to others in the community when the Government, having entered into agreements with trade unionists over many years, suddenly decide one fine day that by an Order in Council they will unilaterally change the terms of employment and perhaps cause the people affected—this is still to be tested—to be dismissed from employment to which they have loyally adhered over many years? What example is that to employers? What way is that to treat loyal trade unionists?

Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the powers we used specifically recognised the overriding priority of national security. Those powers were specifically retained on the statute book in the legislation carried through by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot).

Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that excuse was exploded in the earlier debate. The powers that the Government used do not proceed from the employment legislation of the previous Government but from an Order in Council which the Conservative Government introduced in the last Parliament. It is under the powers of that Order in Council that the rights of trade unions were taken away. It has absolutely nothing to do with employment legislation.
That legislation prevented such workers from going to an unfair dismissal tribunal, but the Government have changed the contract under the Order in Council, and that gives them the right to terminate employment. I am surprised that the Secretary of State is so ill-informed on one of the important features of his own Department. It is unfortunate that he should be so behind on what takes place in the House of Commons.
To some extent we forgive the right hon. Gentleman for not knowing about this Bill, because he did not attend the Committee, but when he strays into GCHQ he ought at least to read the debates which took place in the House of Commons, which he will find illuminating and helpful in carrying out his duties.
The right hon. Gentleman has distracted me from dealing with part III of the Bill. The Government have now attempted to frustrate the finances of the Opposition party. That has not been done before in British politics. There has always been a consensus that political parties would not intervene in this area, but that has now ended.
When the Labour party has the opportunity to legislate on such matters, the very least that it will require is that all companies will need the special approval of their shareholders that a political fund be established, out of


which—and only out of which—contributions can be made to the Conservative party and others, including the SDP, which receives company contributions from time to time. The Labour party does not.
Our other requirement will be that that political fund will allow people to contract out. It is for consideration whether shareholders only will be allowed to contract out or whether the net should be cast wider so that employees who are genuine members of the company have a say.
The Conservatives have opened this up. They are happy to see trade unionists uniquely restricted, yet are prepared to allow companies to be encouraged to carry on political contributions without any legal restraint. They will have only themselves to blame when a Labour Government legislate to bring equity into this area.

Mr. Rowe: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has constantly said that trade unions are uniquely singled out. However, as was mentioned in Committee, a whole category of other organisations with privileges under law are bound by that law as a quid pro quo to establish a political fund or to deal in some other way with their political activities. I am referring to charities, of which there are a large number, and which are bound by the law to establish themselves in some other way if they wish to engage in political activity.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman must know that charities do not have political funds. They are required by law to be non-political in the exercise of their functions, so that puts an end to any parallel. To try to draw a parallel between charities and trade unions, when it is staring us all in the face that the parallel is between trade unions that contribute to the Labour party and companies that contribute to the Conservative party, defies logic. That parallel is clear for anyone to see.
Conservative Members should understand that only diehard Conservatives committed to the financial progress of the Conservative party can support this proposition. The vast majority of people cannot see the equity or justice in special restrictions on trade unions when no such restrictions have been put on companies.

Mr. Roger Gale: On Second Reading, I asked a question that I asked again on Report. I ask it once more, and perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will take this last opportunity to answer it. Why, if more trade unionists did not vote for the Labour party in the last general election than did, does he assume that this is a raid on Labour party funds or that most trade unionists would wish to contribute to the Labour party only?

Mr. Smith: On all the previous occasions when the hon. Gentleman asked this question, I could not understand its relevance, and I am not sure what its relevance is to what I am now saying. I am trying to deal with what the Government propose in the bill by way of legal restrictions on trade unions. They are trying to increase such legal restrictions on political contributions. That must be self-evident, even to the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). I have been trying to point out the unfairness of increasing the restrictions on trade unions while doing nothing about companies. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has that point now, because it is the third time that I have told him this.
Once again, the chairman of the Conservative party has not taken part in the debate on part III. In the Committee

sittings, the chairman of the Conservative party, who in his spare time is a Minister, was instructed by somebody not to appear when the Committee dealt with part III, which concerns political contributions by trade unions. Somewhere in the recesses of the Conservative party or the Government, it was thought unseemly for the hon. Gentleman to take part in the debate on the restrictions of the activities of trade unions. I dare say that he took his salary as a Member of Parliament, although he did not appear in session after session of a Committee in which he was charged with responsibility for the Bill. We could not keep him in his seat when we discussed other parts of the Bill, but when we came to part III, he was not there. He was not allowed to speak on it in Report either, and—surprise, surprise—he is not allowed to speak tonight either. The Under-Secretary has come along to give us yet another rendering of his definition of trade unions when he comes to wind up.
The Under-Secretary got GMBATU wrong before, and we have other questions that we shall put to him now about how he would describe other trade unions, and other sets of initials for him to puzzle over when he winds up. If he gets too bored with answering the questions, he cart pop up to Annabel's and have a friendly chat with the barman.
We should expect the Minister of State to wind up this debate, as he played a prominent part in Committee. My hon. Friends who sat on the Committee will agree that at least two thirds of Ministers' time in Committee was taken up by this Minister. The Secretary of State was hardly there at all, so he does not know who was and was not there. Perhaps he needs to be told that the Minister of State was assiduous in his attendance when the Committee discussed parts I and II. There was not a day on which he did not appear, and there was not a day on which he did not speak.
Suddenly, when we came to part III, the hon. Gentleman was prohibited from attending the Committee by some other power. I give him the credit of thinking that he would have liked to attend, but someone else told him that it was unseemly for him to do so. I say that that person, whoever he or she may be, has a greater sense of decency than some other members of the Government. It may have been a stroke of mercy to deprive us of listening to the Minister of State, but there was a conscience ticking away in the background that knew that there was something wrong about this part of the Bill and something unseemly, even indecent, about it. That is the truth of it, and it has been perceived by people as the debate has gone on.
There is something underhand, unseemly and wicked going on if a political party with a large majority tries to raid the financial coffers of the party in opposition. There is something deeply unsettling, almost unconstitutional, about it. People have noted that as the debate has gone on. If the debate had done nothing else, it has alerted the country.
Two factors will change public opinion. The GCHQ affair and part III of the Bill will alert the country to the double standards of the Conservative party. When the Labour party is in a position—it is not that far away—to introduce some equity, the Conservative party will have only itself to thank.

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): If the majority of the people feel that there is something unsettling in part III,


it is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not moved immediately to enforce a system of contracting in. That is what the majority of people expected. It is the patient decision of my right hon. Friend to live out a one-year or two-year trial period with the TUC which the majority of people may find unsettling, rather than what appears in part III.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) gave us his usual clever advocate's speech. If I found myself charged with illegal picketing, I should ask him to defend me. He would do the job extremely well. I heard the same speech on Second Reading, on Report and again tonight on Third Reading. But if people read the Hansard report of this debate—it is probably unrealistic of us to assume that anyone reads Hansard reports of debates that take place after 11 o'clock at night—they will come to the conclusion that there was a great deal of posturing on the Third Reading of the Trade Union Bill.
Everyone must realise that if the strike in the coal industry develops further, it is likely at some stage to cause a radical change in our trade union law which will go beyond any of the provisions in the Bill — [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) makes a comment about democracy. That is at the heart of the issue. Everyone must look at what is happening in the coal industry and think that that is a total negation of democracy. Most areas voted against strike action and for a national ballot, yet there is strike action and there has been no national ballot. The situation that has developed over the past few weeks must cause many people to wonder why my right hon. Friend has not gone further in the Bill than he has. People are distressed at what is happening in the coal industry. They cannot understand why the clearly expressed wish of the majority in the coal industry is not being effected and why a national ballot has not taken place.

Mr. Roland Boyes: The evidence of opinion polls contradicts the hon. Gentleman. What evidence does he have to substantiate his claim? Has he studied the NUM rule book? If he has, will he say which NUM rules have been broken?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. This is a Third Reading debate and we must discuss what is in the Bill.

Mr. Renton: I am glad that I was asked that question, because, as the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) knows, the Bill calls for secret ballots before official strikes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is well aware that many of us would rather have in the Bill a specific provision for secret postal ballots. What has happened in the coal industry has shown that the rule book can be used and manipulated so that the wish of the majority is not effective. Most areas voted against the strike and for a national ballot. It is an abdication of democracy that steel plants such as Ravenscraig, and others in south Wales, are threatened with closure because of what is happening in the coal industry. That is achieved through a rolling strike and clever use of the rule book. No specific rule is broken, but the rule book is cleverly manipulated so that the wish of the minority succeeds.
Many of us are not happy that the police have to be used as a surrogate for the employer, instead of the employer taking civil action against illegal picketing. That brings me back to the Bill's contents. Far from being a massive upheaval, as the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East described it, the Bill will have to be reinforced soon because of the recent happenings in the coal industry.
We should have liked the Bill to require secret postal ballots. Many of us expected it to contain a requirement for contracting in for the political levy, rather than for the period of grace which is allowed. I cannot help but feel that the Bill is one more step on the road to greater democracy and reform of the trade unions, but that it is likely to have to be reinforced shortly. If the present tragic strike in the coal industry continues, with such a total denial of the wish of the majority in the industry, the day will quickly come when the Bill will have to be reinforced.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you pointed out to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) that his statement about the strike in the coal industry was a little distant from this matter. Therefore, I shall refrain from commenting at any length on what the hon. Gentleman said. His propositions are a perfect formula for ensuring that there will be no end to that strike and that it will escalate. I am sure that the Secretary of State is one of many people who know that that is the case. It is no wonder that he and his fellow Ministers resisted the pleas of the wild men behind them on the Back Benches for more punitive action against the trade unions than is contained in the Bill.
As I listened to the Secretary of State holding forth about democracy, my stomach turned over. We are not, by some queer punctilio, allowed to say in the House that a statement made by another Member is a piece of hypocrisy. I have never understood the reason for that inhibition. I confine myself to saying that, if anyone else in any other place had made the speech made by the Secretary of State, it would have been a piece of nauseating stinking hypocrisy. His idea of democracy is highly selective. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) pointed out, there was not much democracy about GCHQ. Nor is there much democracy in the Conservative party, whose chairman, as Minister of State, Department of Employment, played such a large part in the proceedings on two of the three parts of the Bill. How on earth a member of a Cabinet which is bringing in a Bill to ensure that the elections that were supposed to be held next year for the Greater London council are cancelled so that the Government can appoint an unelected Greater London council can talk about democracy is beyond my comprehension.
The Secretary of State made much of the idea of having a free ballot before a strike is called. That, too, is a piece of selective democracy. Such a proposal can be made only by people unfamiliar with what happens daily in industry. The great majority of strikes start with a piece of spontaneous indignation—for example, a row between a chap and his foreman. Girls in a shop may be fed up because the heating system has broken down on a cold winter's day. They are miserable, their hands are shivering with cold so they cannot hold their jigs properly, and, therefore, they walk out. There may be a change in


working conditions, and people walk out. In nine cases out of 10, the employer will ring the local union official, whom he knows well, and say, "Charlie, come down here. We have a bit of trouble. Give us a hand to sort it out." Charlie comes along——

Mr. Tom King: indicated assent.

Mr. Mikardo: The right hon. Gentleman nods. The Bill will stop that procedure. Charlie will not dare to come along, because — [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman should not copy the habits of some of his young hon. Friends on the Back Benches and constantly mutter during another Member's speech. The responsibilities of his office impose on him an obligation of decent behaviour.
The union official will not go to the shop because that would make the strike official, and his union could be sued. When an employer telephones him and says that the union girls have come out because the shop is cold, he will say, "That is your problem, mate. Get on with it. I will not interfere, or I will fall foul of the Bill." The Bill will ensure that the majority of industrial disputes will be unofficial. I do not understand how anyone thinks that that is a contribution either to good industrial relations or to democracy.
The Secretary of State's passion for democracy is selective in the Bill. If workers put in a wage claim for X per cent. and the employer makes an offer of half that, the workers have to decide whether to accept, to negotiate or to strike. The Bill states that before they can strike they must hold a ballot. Later, there may be negotiation and another offer may be made. The workers on strike have to decide whether to accept the offer, to continue negotiations or to return to work. At that stage there is no requirement to hold a ballot. How on earth can we justify the one without the other?
If the Secretary of State were here, I would tell him that in my union any strike that must start with a ballot will not end without a ballot. The Government will have to put up with that. Ballots take time. It is a slow process. The Bill is a formula not only for ensuring that the majority of disputes are unofficial, but for lengthening each dispute. Charlie will not be able to employ common sense; he will have to go through the whole apparatus.
If there is a ballot, one chap may say that he did not receive his ballot paper. He will go screaming to the certification officer and the matter will go to court. How long will that take? It is a formula to increase the incidence of unofficial disputes and to make it is virtually impossible to end a dispute as quickly as it can now be ended.
Inevitably, in a Third Reading debate comments made on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report are rehashed. I wish to comment on something that has happened since Report. I have a piece of new material for the debate. It concerns the point made so well by my right hon. and learned Friend about the unjustifiable distinction drawn between the use by trade unions of their manifold political purposes and the use by companies of their manifold political purposes. The Secretary of State intervened in my right hon. and learned Friend's speech to say that companies have to report their political donations.
There was much discussion in Committee and on Report about defining what campaigns a union could or could not carry out to be called political or not political.

The Fire Brigades Union is very concerned about the proposal to abolish the Greater London council because it believes that one of its effects will be to reduce fire cover in London, to reduce the efficiency of fire prevention and fire fighting in London and, incidentally, to reduce job opportunities in the fire service. The union would like to campaign against the proposal but would not be able to do so, except by its being marked as a political campaign and being subject to restriction.
What would happen if a company or a group of companies decided to campaign in favour of the abolition of the GLC? Would that be political? I quote from The Guardian of 6 April:
A company which claims personal backing from the Prime Minister is to fight a propaganda campaign against the Greater London Council. The organisation is chaired by Shirley, Lady Porter, the Tory leader of Westminster City Council, who has written to leading business men appealing for donations of at least £1,000 and pointing out that they will not count as political contributions which would have to be published in company accounts.
That seems to me to make nonsense of the intervention of the Secretary of State.
Let us have it clear. The FBU wants to campaign for the retention of the GLC. That is political. It not only has to record and publish it, but it has to get the consent of its members to do it. But if companies want to campaign for the abolition of the GLC, they are assured by Shirley, Lady Porter—and obviously she has taken legal advice from somebody who has had a look at the Bill — donations will not count as political donations. For people who produce a Bill with those contrasting effects to get up and mouth about democracy really is nauseating.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), for the Opposition, did not seem to have many arguments against the extension of democracy within trade unions. We all need to remember that there are probably 200,000 or more shop stewards in the trade union movement who perform an often thankless job, often elected or re-elected without competition, because it is not one of the most gratifying tasks. It is rather like being a churchwarden, or a ward secretary in the Labour party or the Tory party. We are concerned not about people at that level but about people at the top of trade unions, some of whom—not all—appear to try to use their members' money to persuade their members to do things that the members do not want to do.
One of the contrasts in the present miners' dispute is that, instead of trying for a national ballot in the way that the National Union of Mineworkers has traditionally done over the years, it is trying to avoid it this time. There is a great deal to be said for making sure that union leaders have the confidence of their members and that that is regularly expressed.
I also believe that, whatever may happen to the political funds of the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society in Eltham, where the society operates, and in other co-operative societies, bodies such as the co-ops should be treated like companies, rather than drawing an exact parallel between, say, co-ops and trade unions or companies and trade unions. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman can produce a properly thought out


policy to deal with the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society, I shall take his attempted analogy between companies and trade unions more seriously.
The argument that the Bill seeks to bankrupt or remove funds from the Labour party is absolutely wrong, as all the arguments on Report made clear. Indeed, as soon as I sit down the SDP will probably say that the Government have not gone far enough. Therefore, most of the arguments advanced by the Labour party are either ill thought out or just plain daft.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Mr. Deputy Speaker — [Interruption.] Perhaps you would like me to resume my seat while Labour Members calm down. The sooner they do so, the sooner I can make my speech and not delay their getting to bed any longer than they clearly wish to be delayed.
As the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) may know, and as some Opposition Members may know, the position of the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society is rather different from that of the other co-operative societies in the United Kingdom in that it is not affiliated to the Co-operative party nationally and organises its political funds and activities in a different way. One characteristic that it shares with all the others, however, is that its rules and activities are very carefully and precisely constrained by the law.
One of the basic co-operative principles — the Rochdale principles—is that of one vote per shareholder irrespective of the number of shares held. The method of democracy in the co-operative movement has been laid down by statute in industrial and provident societies legislation over many decades, so no new principle is being introduced here to deal with the methods of democracy in co-operative and mutual organisations. I made that clear in Committee and I hope that Labour Members will now accept that it is not a new principle.
The question before us today is whether the Bill will improve the operation of the trade union movement and whether it is right in principle. I have no doubt that the extension of trade union members' right to ballot should be supported by the House. That is why we voted for the Bill on Second Reading. [Interruption.] If Labour Members wish to speak on Third Reading, I am sure that the House will look forward to hearing them, but I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will remind them that their comments should be made not from a sedentary position but as contributions later in the debate.
We believe that there is a very powerful case for an extension of the principle of one member one vote in the trade union movement. [Interruption.]
That is the treatment that one expects from the Scargillites who are sitting on the Labour Benches tonight. The country will not be surprised to hear how these Labour Members are behaving. I shall continue my speech, although clearly some Labour Members do not wish to hear it. If any of them wish to speak later in the Debate, we shall listen to them with interest.
It is regrettable that, having introduced a Bill extending the principle of one member, one vote to trade union members, the Government did not permit it to be improved in Committee as we had suggested on Second Reading.

For that reason, we do not feel that it is worthy of support this evening. Our arguments are powerful, and I shall outline them.
Having embraced this principle, it is a great pity that the Government did not define its application much more effectively in the statute. The reaction of some Conservative Members demonstrates how badly wrong the Government's line has been. As the Minister said, the procedures proposed in the Bill are already in operation, in large part, in a number of trade unions. These are not violently, radically new ideas. They are not completely new to the trade union movement. It is surprising to hear some Labour Members opposing the principles that are already in practice in their own unions, and procedures already in practice in large sections of the trade union movement.
I shall deal first with part I. It is regrettable that, having introduced the principle of electing the principal executive committee of the union, the Government have not drafted the legislation in such a way as to ensure that people such as Mr. Scargill must be periodically re-elected in the way that the Secretary of State suggested this evening that he would be. Mr. Scargill and a number of other senior leading trade union officials will not be caught by this provision, either because they do not happen to have a vote on the principal executive committee of their union or because the rules can be changed and they can waive the right to that vote. Nobody would suggest that Mr. Scargill is not influential in the affairs of his union. It seems rather ludicrous that a Bill which seeks to introduce the principle of the election of the main senior officers may not catch some of the most influential officers in the trade union movement.
I hope that the Government will reconsider that point in another place and see whether amendments can be introduced to ensure that all the major trade union officers in the country are covered by the provisions for periodical elections, so that they will be much more closely responsible to their members than, in many instances, they are today.
It is also regrettable that the method of election chosen for the principal executive committee is not the one that prefers postal ballots, even though it allows them. There would have to be exceptions to the general rule. Postal ballots could not be adopted in every instance. As we have suggested, there are cases that should be given exemption by the certification officer. However, we believe that such ballots should generally take place by post. An overwhelming case has been made for such provision.
As was demonstrated on Report, even the National Union of Mineworkers, which has a long tradition of balloting which many people admire, has a system of workplace balloting which is open to abuse and manipulation and is not as correct and open to scrutiny as ballots carried out in the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication, and Plumbing Union and the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers — [Interruption.] I know that Labour Members want to prolong the debate because they do not want the Bill on the statute book one minute earlier than is necessary. I know that they will remember the early 1970s when the Industrial Relations Act 1971——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his speech to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: There is a great deal in the Bill, and I can do that for a long time to ensure that the arguments are not lost and that the House has ample opportunity to debate them before this important Bill, which will have an enormous impact on the trade union movement and, we hear, on the Labour party, reaches the statute book. It will not have escaped some people's attention that, despite the Labour party's apparently fierce opposition to the Bill, we are debating the Bill's Third Reading at a late hour and not during a prominent part of the House's proceedings when the eyes of the country are on us. Many Labour Members are hoping to get away as soon as possible, having passed the Bill. I am sure that we should rehearse the arguments, which are important for the trade union movement.
Part II deals with ballots on industrial action. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) made a powerful case for opposing part II, as it will clearly cause major disruption by encouraging unofficial action. The Bill, as drafted, will encourage such action, because only official action must be balloted for if the exemptions from the law are not to be brought to bear against trade unions. Unofficial action will be able to continue without a ballot. We know from the evidence of the past few years that the majority of industrial action is unofficial. The Bill therefore does not deal with balloting for the majority of industrial action and will consequently not ensure that trade union members have an opportunity to express their views in the majority of industrial disputes. It will therefore not achieve the objective which the Government have laid down. Indeed, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, it will make matters worse by encouraging action which might normally have been made official to remain unofficial, to escape the provisions of the Bill.
Part III deals with political funds and contains the most important defects in the Bill. As the House will know, it does not deal with the two major questions about political funding of parties by trade unions in Britain. The first major question is whether the system of contracting out or contracting in should be maintained. The second question which exercises people's minds is whether the affiliation to a particular party should be maintained in the way that it is at present. Other deficiencies arise, but those are the two principal areas of public concern about trade union funding of political activities.
The Bill—I do not know where the Government got the proposal from—deals only with the existence of political funds. Until the Government came forward with that proposal, no anxiety of which I am aware was expressed about the existence of political funds. Whether there should be a political fund in a trade union was not in dispute. What was in dispute was whether people should have the right to contract in to that political fund and whether a union should be allowed to continue to use its political fund for affiliation to one party or another without reference to the full membership by a ballot. Those were the points of contention, and the Bill does not deal with them.
In bringing forward this irrelevant measure in part III, the Government have raised the question of the funding of political parties in Britain. That has been demonstrated once again this evening in the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East. He has clearly taken the red rag that has been waved before him and given a commitment that a change will be made in political

funding by companies. It is right that he should do that, because it is unfair, as I said on Second Reading, that the Government should introduce legislation of this sort which will have an impact upon only one political party. II was inevitable that the Bill would have such consequences.
A wholesale reform of the political funding system in Britain is needed. We need a package introducing the state funding of political parties and a reform of the system of company law so that political contributions are not made by companies without the prior approval of shareholders. We need other changes along the lines that have already been mentioned and provisions which we sought to introduce in the Bill, such as the long overdue provision for the reintroduction of contracting in and for decisions to be taken by the whole membership of the union as to where the political funds of the union should be spent.
It is also regrettable that in extending democracy within the trade union movement the Government did not go much further than just the introduction of democracy in one part of our industrial scene. They should have introduced the provision, which they are clearly seeking to resist, from the EC to introduce industrial democracy. I hope that the Government, instead of resisting the fifth directive and the Vredeling directives from the European Community, which seek to introduce a modest element of industrial democracy into Britain, will change their view and realise that if they endorse the principle of democracy in trade unions, they should carry it further into all industrial activities.
It is clear that the extension of democracy into all sections of our lives will benefit the community. In those countries that have had greater industrial success——

Mr. Michael J. Martin (Glasgow, Springbum): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I realise that you must call speakers from minority parties, but the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) has hogged the show here and has pushed Back-Bench Members such as myself out of the debate. It is unfair that he should speak for longer than the Front-Bench spokesmen, when he represents only a few hon. Members in the Chamber.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that, fortunately or unfortunately, the length of speeches is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) must realise, this is an open-ended debate and he can make a speech, as I am sure he would wish, to keep this debate going through the night and to demonstrate to the trade union movement his opposition to the Bill. I look forward to hearing his speech, and those of his right hon. and hon. Friends, in opposition to the Bill. There is no time limit that I know of on the debate, so we can discuss this important matter at great length. It is important to the trade unions, to industry as a whole and to the country. Therefore, we must ensure that all points of view are put and that adequate consideration is given to the bill before it goes on to the statute book.
The hon. Gentleman said that I represent only a few hon. Members in the House. That may be so, but I remind him that the Labour party received 28 per cent. of the votes at the general election and the alliance received 26 per cent., so we represent opinion that is almost as substantial as that represented by the Labour party. We have every right, which we intend to exercise, to put before the House our views on this Bill and on all legislation. I have no


hesitation in ensuring that the views of the alliance are put forward at length so that the opinion of those whom we represent is properly——

Mr. Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) speaking to the point? He seems to be arguing about proportional representation and the SDP rather than about part III.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall decide when the hon. Gentleman is out of order.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was simply responding to the comments of the hon. Member for Springburn.
The regrettable fact is that the Government, in introducing this legislation based on the principle of introducing democracy into trade unions, have not gone further and introduced it into the entire industrial sector. That reform is long overdue and I hope that in due course the Minister and his colleagues will bring it before the House. I hope, too, that we shall soon have a debate on the directives that I mentioned earlier so that the House can have an opportunity to consider the proposals of the European Community and to impress upon the Government the need to extend democracy much further than they are doing in the Bill.
The Bill will have a profound impact upon the trade union movement. It is regrettable that the Government have not been prepared to recognise the enormous impact that the Bill will have on the trade union movement by assisting in the reorganisation and changes that will have to take place. There will be a great upheaval in the rule books of trade unions if they are to comply with the legislation.
Even more important in some respects is the fact that the Bill will lead to substantial expenditure for trade unions if they are to comply with the legislation and ballot members on various issues in the way that the Bill proposes. It will be expensive to ballot the whole membership of a trade union in the way proposed by the Bill. There will be the cost of postage for the ballot, together with the administration of the balloting procedure and the register of the members of the trade union that will have to be kept to ensure that the ballot is carried out correctly.
It is regrettable that the Government have not built on the proposal which they previously introduced to provide funds for postal balloting, and that they have not considered the suggestion which we have made for a trade union development fund against which the expenses that will have to be incurred by unions in introducing the balloting can be offset. I hope that the Minister will consider the suggestion.
If the House, quite rightly, is to require trade unions to act in a more democratic way, it should help to provide the resources to enable them to do that effectively. We know that the resources available to the trade union movement are already inadequate for the work that it has to carry out. Trade union officials are heavily overburdened at local and national level with their responsibilities in pay negotiations, redundancies, the terms and conditions of their members, servicing the individual problems of union members, welfare and

employment problems, and the problems that arise with the Department of Health and Social Security, the Department of Employment and other local authority and Government Departments. Those responsibilities amount to an enormous task for trade union officials to carry out. The trade union movement, generally speaking, does not have sufficient resources to carry out that task as effectively as it would often wish to.
In comparison with the trade union movements in other countries, our trade union movement is not as well off as it should be. If one compares trade union subscriptions in this country with the trade union subscriptions and incomes in France, in Germany or in other European countries—or, indeed, in the United States—one finds that the resources available to the trade union movement in this country are very limited. It would be right and proper for the Government to introduce a fund to help trade unions offset the substantial burden that the bill will put upon their shoulders. When the Bill comes before the other place, I hope that the Minister will look more favourably at this proposal because of the financial burden that is being put on the trade union movement, the Government should consider introducing a trade union development fund to help it meet that increased financial burden.
It is regrettable that the opportunity available to the Government in the Bill has not been taken to extend trade union democracy in a way that will be more effective than it has been in the past, and to ensure that trade union leaders are more responsive to the wishes of their memebers by balloting in the case of industrial disputes and the election of executive committees. It is a pity that the method adopted in the Bill by the Government is not more effective than it has turned out to be.
We very much regret that the Government were not prepared to respond to the proposals put forward by myself and my hon. Friends during the passage of the Bill. We hope that when the Bill comes before the other place the Government will respond much more enthusiastically and gain the support of our right hon. and hon. Friends there, which, unfortunately, they have not justified in this place because of the way in which they have brought the Bill back on Third Reading.

Mr. John Evans: The hour is late—it is now after midnight—and the House has just suffered a long, boring and mostly irrelevant speech by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth), to which scarcely any hon. Member paid attention. Probably the reason was that most hon. Members appreciate that, while the Committee had about 37 sittings and sat for over 100 hours, the hon. Member for Stockton, South would have been lucky if he put in two and a half hours. He did not put forward one amendment. When he voted, he usually voted with the Government. It is also interesting to note that the hon. Gentleman said that the Social Democratic party would not support the Government on Third Reading, but he did not say that it would oppose the Government and vote with the Opposition against Third Reading. I suspect that one or two members of the Social Democratic party will vote with the Opposition, but the majority will be safely tucked up in bed.
Once again the trade unions and trade unionism are at the centre of British politics. British trade unionism has had a long and proud tradition of honesty and integrity of


purpose throughout many years. It has had no history of dishonesty. There has never been any corruption in the British trade union movement that has scarred its development. It was brought about and built up by the efforts of millions of ordinary men and women, many of whom did not have much in the way of formal education. They put hours of their lives into building the trade union movement.
The truth is that the trade union movement is not in the ownership of one or two trade union barons; it is in the ownership of about 11·5 million ordinary men and women. It is a scandal that the Tory Government and party constantly denigrate attack and sneer at the trade union movement, when British people should be proud of its great history and tradition of democracy and the fact that the British trade union movement is the proudest and most honourable trade union movement in the world.
Throughout the past five years of Tory Government, there has been a series of denigrating attacks and legislation aimed at shackling the trade union movement. Throughout, the Tory party has been supported by the Liberal party, and of late, since it was formed, by the Social Democratic party. It always sticks in Labour Opposition Members' gullets when we hear members of the Social Democratic party, most of whom were members of the Labour party for a long time and lived off the back of the trade union movement, attacking the unions. We treat their arguments with the contempt that they deserve.
The Bill is further evidence of the march to a corporate state by the present masters of the Tory party. The Bill is a dictatorial instruction to formerly free trade unions, railroaded through Parliament by the huge majority that the Tory party now enjoys. Unfortunately, that majority scarcely listens and never thinks about the issues placed before the House. The general principle for the overwhelming majority of the Tory party, when dealing with trade union matters, seems to be that if it attacks the trade union movement, it must be good. Tory Members do not ask important questions such as: will the Bill improve industrial relations? The answer is that it will worsen industrial relations. They do not ask whether it will reduce unemployment — the greatest scourge that now faces society — because it will not. They do not even ask whether the Bill is necessary—an important question—because if it does nothing to improve industrial relations or reduce unemployment, it is obvious that it is totally and absolutely unnecessary.
As has been said, part I of the Bill forces a stereotype on unions when electing their executive committees. Already, every union elects its executive committee, in one democratic form or another, for periods ranging from one year to six years. There is a mixture of lay members and full-time members, and there are directly and indirectly elected executive councils.
The Bill will go against the grain of the past 20 years with regard to union mergers, one of the features of which was to ensure that the smaller union involved in a merger had a place reserved on the executive council. That will not apply under the Bill. Once we insist that executive councils must be directly elected in the same manner, that will not apply.
Who is to pass a qualitative judgment that, for example, the AUEW (Engineering Section) is a better-organised, better-run union that GMBATU simply because it has a different method of electing its executive council? It will

be the Minister in Whitehall. It is significant that in 1984 we have yet another example of Big Brother in Whitehall knowing best.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said, part II is by far the most ridiculous part of the Bill. It will be a charter for militants and extremists who will exploit it in future. It is nonsense that ballots should be demanded only for official action but not for unofficial action. As we have argued in Committee, some interesting questions will appear on ballot papers in the years ahead.
It is significant that the Government are insisting on the inclusion of phrases such as "breaking one's contract of employment." In Committee we asked why the Government had not gone the whole hog and insisted on writing the questions. If Conservative Members think that phrases such as "breaking one's contract of employment" will deter individuals from taking legitimate strike action, they have another think coming.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) pointed out, it is inevitable that union memberships will insist that their rule books be amended to ensure that before strikes are called off they will be balloted on whether they accept offers that union negotiators propose to accept. That will seriously weaken industrial relations and industrial activity.
Worst of all, again as my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar pointed out, union officers will in future refuse to get involved in unofficial action. That will cause astonishment to employers who in the past have always depended on union officers to end unofficial strikes. In future, as the Secretary of State knows, they will not get involved, because they will be in danger of placing their unions' funds at risk.
Part III is the most significant part of the Bill. it is the third prong of the Tory Government's attack on the trade union movement and trade unionists. In 1980 and in 1982, Employment Acts diminished the ability of trade unions to defend their membership in industrial circumstances. This Bill is an attempt to diminish their ability to defend their members in the political context. We already have it on record that the costs of campaigns such as that mounted by the National and Local Government Officers Association last year in which it sought to defend its members against the attacks of the Government, will not be allowed to be deducted from the general fund, but 'will have to come from political funds. NALGO, like other unions in the public sector, does not have a political fund, so it will not be able to mount a campaign to defend its members.
What is more—the Secretary of State cannot deny this — the Bill seeks to smash the link between the unions and the Labour party—a link of which we are proud, and which we shall continue to defend. This is a major example of the Tory bully-boy tactics of silencing and stifling any opposition. As my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, we have seen these tactics with GCHQ, with the rate capping measure and with the abolition of the elections for the GLC and the metropolitan counties. The country will be amazed that there is no countervailing measure against company donations to the Tory party. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, we have taken note of that, and we shall be delighted to do something about it when we return to government.
The Bill will not succeed. Indeed, paradoxically it will politicise the unions more than they have ever been in the


past. Unions, particularly in the public sector and the Civil Service, that have never before had or required a political fund will go out and campaign among their members to get one, and to make their members fully aware that if they intend to campaign against the Tory Government, as their employer, on wages and conditions, it will have to be through a political campaign that will require a political fund. Unions that do not have a political fund will acquire one over the next two years.
More significantly, unions, particularly the industrial ones, which have a political fund, will campaign ferociously to maintain it. Once they do so, it will strengthen the links between them and the Labour party.
The Bill is iniquitous, one-sided and dangerous to democracy. I trust that every one who believes in democracy will deny this awful Bill a Third Reading.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Alan Clark): In this debate, Labour Members have not added one new line of argument, or one that has not been advanced, elaborated and rejected in the 120 hours or so of debate that we have had in the Chamber and in Committee since December last. I do not impugn the motives of hon. Members in so doing, but their attitude and this obdurate resistance is years out of date. They are resisting a tide of history, and those who read Karl Marx will know how perilous it is to do that. It is a tide that comes from the public, has been tested in every opinion poll that has been taken on the subject, from the trade unions themselves, and from the electorate less than 12 months ago.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) put forward certain superficially constructive suggestions, the principal one of which was that certain categories of union leader, as he put it, avoided facing re-election. The test that we have applied is simply whether such an official has the right to cast a vote on the principal executive committee of the union. The fact that he may for various other reasons exercise power—it may be that he has a television personality or the ability to attract attention to himself — does not alter the position that he remains the servant of his executive. Unless he has that vote—the hon. Gentleman gave the example of Mr. Scargill, who has a casting vote and will be caught by the provisions of the Bill — it is not appropriate to include him.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about permitting the use of workplace ballots rather than postal votes, which he criticised. The workplace ballot has a higher attendance and does not have the practical difficulties attaching to a postal vote. The Government do not allege that there is fraudulent intention on the part of unions and that it is their objective to rig ballots — the classic case of ballot rigging was a postal ballot that was rigged — but we have not closed our mind completely to postal ballots. As the Bill stands, we are satisfied that workplace ballots will give the highest attendance and will pose the least practical difficulties.
The hon. Gentleman alleged that the Bill failed to tackle adequately the problems associated with the funding of political parties. We know the problems of funding that afflict his party. They are the problems of credit card subscribers deciding to cancel their subscriptions. The

hon. Gentleman wants to solve these problems by putting the burden on the taxpayer because his party cannot attract the voluntary subscriptions which support the Labour and Conservative parties. It is hard to think of a more discreditable solution than that.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clark: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, although his presence in the Chamber is only about four minutes old. I assume that it is some sudden rush of blood to the brain that has inspired him rather than any recollection of what has been said in the debate.

Mr. Skinner: I wanted to remind the Minister, who did not know what GMBATU stood for when we considered the Bill in Committee, that, when it came to money for the plastic party, in 1982 the accounts of the Social Democratic party showed a drop in membership subscriptions of £155,000 but an increase in suspicious, undisclosed donations of £300,000. We all remember those cheques for £2,000 that were sent round to Social Democratic MPs.

Mr. Clark: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for helping me in my argument. It is perfectly possible that the misgivings which led the hon. Member for Stockton, South to advance these arguments are that the so-called undisclosed donations may start to wither and that he will then have no other course than to legislate to impose his levy on the taxpayer.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) trailed various red herrings about GCHQ, Vredeling and industrial democracy. He did that because he had run out of argument after 120"hours or so. But when he moved on to part III, he referred to the intention to minimise the financial resources of the Labour party. These resources will only be minimised if the members wish that to happen. To say that the Government are raiding the coffers of the Labour party is preposterous. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would not want to fill his coffers with money raised against the wishes of trade union members, would he?

Mr. David Penhaligon: I should like to clear the Minister of the charge that he did anything nasty to the Labour party, because I remember the entire Conservative membership of the House going through the Lobby to keep the resources. I heard the Minister refer to taxpayers' money financing political parties. What is the golden crock which provides the £2 million or £3 million which the Tories are spending on the European campaign from Brussels? If that is not taxpayers' money, where does it come from?

Mr. Clark: The intricacies of finance relating to the European Community have always been a closed book to me.
Yet again the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) gave an example of a campaign which could be caught by the provisions of part III. He referred to the campaign to resist the abolition of the GLC. Yet again, I have to tell him that that campaign will be lawful and could be paid for out of the general fund. Unless it is couched in such terms as to recommend people to vote for or against a political party it is immune. I hope that that is the last occasion on which I have to enlighten the hon. Gentleman about those provisions.
The most striking characteristic of all the contributions by Labour Members is the lack of anything constructive. They simply resist all change. Their attitude is purely nihilistic. They should ask themselves whether they want unions to be perpetual oligarchies run by cliques the political motives of which rank before their concern for the welfare and conditions of their members, or whether they accept that the real health and dignity of the trade union movement should reside in their being responsive—and generally seen to be responsive — to the wishes and aspirations of their membership. Do they really want a leadership which is able to commitee a whole union to strike action without consulting members first?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) asked, do they accept that if a man wishes to work he has a right to express that view? Are hon. Members really content to subsist on levies drawn from those who, whether from diffidence, indolence or apprehension, do not subscribe voluntarily?
It is plain that, if hon. Members devoted their minds to the issue in a dispassionate manner, they would welcome the Bill. They should welcome it because it contains much which, when put into practice, will allow trade unionists to go some way towards recovering that level of public recognition and responsibility which in former times they enjoyed.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 149.

Division No. 253]
[12.30 am


AYES


Ancram, Michael
Gale, Roger


Arnold, Tom
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Baldry, Anthony
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Body, Richard
Goodlad, Alastair


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gorst, John


Bottomley, Peter
Gow, Ian


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Greenway, Harry


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gregory, Conal


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grist, Ian


Buck, Sir Antony
Ground, Patrick


Budgen, Nick
Grylls, Michael


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hanley, Jeremy


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hannam, John


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Harg reaves, Kenneth


Clegg, Sir Walter
Harris, David


Cockeram, Eric
Haselhurst, Alan


Colvin, Michael
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Conway, Derek
Hawksley, Warren


Cope, John
Hayhoe, Barney


Cranborne, Viscount
Hayward, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Dicks, Terry
Heddle, John


Dorrell, Stephen
Henderson, Barry


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hickmet, Richard


Durant, Tony
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Farr, John
Hind, Kenneth


Favell, Anthony
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Fletcher, Alexander
Holt, Richard


Fookes, Miss Janet
Hooson, Tom


Forman, Nigel
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Fox, Marcus
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Franks, Cecil
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Freeman, Roger
Hubbard-Miles, Peter





Hunt, David (Wirral)
Renton, Tim


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hunter, Andrew
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Jessel, Toby
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Roe, Mrs Marion


Key, Robert
Rossi, Sir Hugh


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rost, Peter


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Rowe, Andrew


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knowles, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Knox, David
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lamont, Norman
Sayeed, Jonathan


Latham, Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Silvester, Fred


Lester, Jim
Sims, Roger


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lightbown, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lilley, Peter
Speed, Keith


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Speller, Tony


Lord, Michael
Spencer, Derek


Luce, Richard
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Lyell, Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McCrindle, Robert
Squire, Robin


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Stanbrook, Ivor


Macfarlane, Neil
Steen, Anthony


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Stern, Michael


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Maclean, David John
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Madel, David
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Major, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Malins, Humfrey
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maples, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marland, Paul
Terlezki, Stefan


Marlow, Antony
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mather, Carol
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Maude, Hon Francis
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thome, Neil (Ilford S)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thornton, Malcolm


Mellor, David
Thurnham, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tracey, Richard


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mills, lain (Meriden)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Viggers, Peter


Moate, Roger
Waddington, David


Monro, Sir Hector
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Walden, George


Moynihan, Hon C.
Walker, Bill (Tside N)


Murphy, Christopher
Wall, Sir Patrick


Needham, Richard
Waller, Gary


Neubert, Michael
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Nicholls, Patrick
Warren, Kenneth


Norris, Steven
Watson, John


Onslow, Cranley
Watts, John


Oppenheim, Philip
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Wheeler, John


Osborn, Sir John
Whitfield, John


Ottaway, Richard
Whitney, Raymond


Page, John (Harrow W)
Wilkinson, John


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Winterton, Nicholas


Parris, Matthew
Wood, Timothy


Pawsey, James
Woodcock, Michael


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Yeo, Tim


Porter, Barry
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Powell, William (Corby)



Powley, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Mr. Archie Hamilton and Mr. Tim Sainsbury.


Prior, Rt Hon James



Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)







NOES


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Deakins, Eric


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dewar, Donald


Barnett, Guy
Dobson, Frank


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Dormand, Jack


Bell, Stuart
Douglas, Dick


Benn, Tony
Dubs, Alfred


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bermingham, Gerald
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Blair, Anthony
Eadie, Alex


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Eastham, Ken


Boyes, Roland
Ellis, Raymond


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Fatchett, Derek


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Caborn, Richard
Foster, Derek


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Ian
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
George, Bruce


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Godman, Dr Norman


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Golding, John


Clarke, Thomas
Gould, Bryan


Clay, Robert
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Cohen, Harry
Harman, Ms Harriet


Coleman, Donald
Heffer, Eric S.


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Conlan, Bernard
Home Robertson, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Hoyle, Douglas


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Craigen, J. M.
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Crowther, Stan
Janner, Hon Greville


Cunliffe, Lawrence
John, Brynmor


Cunningham, Dr John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dalyell, Tam
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Lambie, David





Leadbitter, Ted
Radice, Giles


Leighton, Ronald
Randall, Stuart


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Redmond, M.


Litherland, Robert
Richardson, Ms Jo


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Robertson, George


McCartney, Hugh
Rogers, Allan


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Rooker, J. W.


McGuire, Michael
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Sedgemore, Brian


McKelvey, William
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McNamara, Kevin
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


McTaggart, Robert
Short, Mrs H.(W'hampt'n NE)


McWilliam, John
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Madden, Max
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Martin, Michael
Snape, Peter


Maxton, John
Soley, Clive


Maynard, Miss Joan
Spearing, Nigel


Meacher, Michael
Stott, Roger


Michie, William
Strang, Gavin


Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Tinn, James


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Torney, Tom


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wareing, Robert


O'Neill, Martin
Welsh, Michael


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Park, George
Wilson, Gordon


Parry, Robert
Winnick, David


Patchett, Terry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pendry, Tom



Pike, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Mr. Don Dixon and Mr. Frank Hayes.


Prescott, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Sweatshops

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Mr. Greville Janner: I am pleased to have the opportunity——

Mr. John Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the official business which was distributed on the Government Benches, and to which we have received no correction, the subject was not the subject that is on the Order Paper today; it related to glue sniffing. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to rule whether it is proper to have a debate on this fresh subject, which has been changed at very short notice, without proper consultation with the House authorities.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): As I understand the position, the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) changed the subject in accordance with the rules of the House.

Mr. Michael Cocks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the point of order was raised after the Adjournment was moved, is it not only natural justice that the time taken by the interventions of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and myself should not be counted in the half hour allocated for the Adjournment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that I am bound by the rules of the House, and I cannot extend the time.

Mr. Janner: I am not in the least surprised that the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has sought to raise a spurious point of order to prevent the House from having even this half hour to debate this vital subject. Not only did the House have the usual 48 hours' notice, but the subject was changed even before the Easter recess. Therefore, it was at least four times as long as the usual time. I do not intend to waste any more time on that.
I ask the House to consider the disgraceful situation created by the high unemployment, which has resulted in people all over the country accepting low wages and being prepared to work in scandalous conditions which, to a very large extent, are the direct result of Government policy. They are the direct result of the Government having allowed a situation to arise where unemployment overall is at a dreadful level, and where, in the city of Leicester, it is in real terms 20 per cent. and in parts of my constituency as high as 60 per cent.
It is a situation in which the Government have seen fit to repeal a schedule to the Employment Act 1975 which enabled people to raise their wages above slave labour levels if others in the same area and industry were earning better wages, and in which the Government have seen fit to demand and to proclaim that they intend to repeal the wages council regulations. In addition, the Government are continually cutting the provision for the Health and Safety Executive so that the number of inspectors able to look into the problem is diminishing, just as the need for the inspectorate increases.
This is a national problem which applies throughout the country, irrespective of the sort of people who live in particular areas or how long they have been in the country. It is a problem that affects, above all, textile industries, as indeed the problem of sweatshops has throughout the

centuries and many lands. It concerns pay and conditions, and the problem has been highlighted in the city of Leicester in a campaign by the Leicester Mercury, on which I congratulate that newspaper. The campaign has lit a spotlight in one area, the light from which should illuminate the sort of misery which is being suffered in so many parts of the country as a result of the conditions in which people are being forced to work.
The dangerous conditions include wooden buildings which are fire traps, machines which are improperly guarded, breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and breaches of the regulations made under that Act. People are prepared to accept a disgracefully low level of wages only in conditions in which they are desperate to have any sort of work. Outworkers are more affected than any other workers. Under the headline "Outworkers 'boost' company profits", today's Financial Times states that homeworkers and outworkers are
contributing to the profitability and investment plans of companies using them.
It goes on to state, however:
None the less, as the research makes clear, outworkers' wages and conditions are generally inferior to those of permanent staff. It says rates of pay were never higher than those for inworkers, except to some extent in the mainly distributive and retail sector where wages come under Wages Councils …."—
which the Government propose to abolish—
and yet outworkers were typically not offered the benefits. such as sick pay and holiday pay, that are now standard benefits for employees.
It is scarcely surprising that in a city such as Leicester, where the outworkers' campaign has been running for so long and where there are so many outworkers and homeworkers, conditions are worse than in many other parts of the country. That is the fault of the Government and of the conditions in which sweatshops flourish.
Instead of taking steps to deal with the problem, the Minister has sent me the most fatuous letter to appear on my desk in 13 years of serving my constituents. As criticism of the campaign, he says:
It may not be in the interests of the low paid to raise their pay levels if as a result their jobs are destroyed.
That argument is worthy of those who opposed the efforts of William Wilberforce to get rid of slavery in this country. I wish that I had time to read the letter in full, but I ask the Minister to reconsider the terms in which he saw fit to denigrate and attack the campaign by the Leicester Mercury and those of us who are trying to improve conditions in the city.
I have a letter from Mr. Day, the principal inspector of factories in Leicester, in which he says:
The 3 inspectors at the Leicester Office are responsible for approximately 3,000 factories.
It is clearly impossible for an inspectorate of that number to carry that sort of burden and to do the job in the way required at any time, least of all in present circumstances when the number of unsatisfactory premises is growing. I ask the Minister to renounce the awful policy under which resources for the inspectorate are being cut and the number of inspectors reduced. On the contrary, will he now assure the House that the number of inspectors will be increased, especially in cities such as Leicester where the difficulties are of such nightmare proportions?
I was pleased to receive a letter from the National Union of Hosiery and Knitwear Workers, as so many of these conditions exist in that and other sectors of the textile industry. We have the full support of the trade unions, not just because in a decent society the conditions achieved by


trade unions must not be undercut by what amounts to slave labour but because the unions are and always have been extremely concerned about the conditions in which people in their industry are forced to work. The district secretary, Mr. Kilsby, says that
there is a desperate need to appoint more Health &amp; Safety Inspectors to carry out a special campaign to check into these Companies"—
those not providing proper conditions. He continues:
During visits to these type of Companies I have observed children wandering around in the factory, which is obviously against the Factory Act and I also feel that unless something is done in the very near future there is a distinct possibility of a fire which could result in loss of life—which has already happened in a clothing factory in London.
He wishes the campaign every success.
As the Leicester Mercury headline puts it,
Fire insurance nightmare hits 40 city firms.
It is the multiple-occupancy firms that the inspectors cannot reach, but instead of more fire officers there are fewer, instead of more inspectors there are fewer, and instead of more effort being made to deal with the problem there is less, at a time when there is the most awful unemployment and the most dreadful situations of the kind that my father fought against in the 1930s when he was Member of Parliament for Whitechapel and St. Georges. There has been a reversion to the days of sweatshops, but instead of taking the necessary action the Government are doing the opposite.
I have correspondence from the Leicester and District Trades Council, from which I shall have time to quote briefly. It says:
We … support the recent moves to improve locally the fire service, and increase the number of fire prevention officers, as proposed by the Labour Group on the Leicestershire County Council. This was blocked by the Tory and Liberal groups. There have been several fires within the textile industry in Leicester recently. When will there be a major tragedy?
We pray to God that there will be none, but, if there is, the burden that rests upon the Minister and the Government is a mighty one. [Interruption.] I am sorry if I am disturbing the Minister. I ask him to respond to this plea on behalf of all of us. Within the city of Leicester itself and then elsewhere, every effort should be made to increase the resources available.
What do we ask the Government to do, both locally and nationally? First, we need a full national inquiry, so that the circumstances can be properly revealed. They are not easy to unveil. They are cloaked in fear—the fear of those who do not wish to lose their jobs, however wretched those jobs may be and however unsafe the surroundings in which they work.
It is not easy to acquire the evidence. The Government should hold an inquiry in order to unveil the truth. I trust that, instead of playing down the circumstances as he saw fit to do in his letter, the Minister will recognise the reality of the problem and undertake to the House that he will do whatever lies in his power to see that an inquiry is held.
Secondly, I ask for the resources for the inspectorates which have so far been refused, or reduced when they should have been increased. In particular, I have the factory inspectorate in mind. The city of Leicester should not have only three inspectors to look after 3,000 factories.
Thirdly, I ask the Government to reintroduce legislation such as that which they saw fit to repeal in the schedule which gave the right to compare the wages obtained by people in the same area with the wages of those in similar

work in that area who are paid at a much lower rate. The unfair competition of slave labour is unfair to those who have jobs and are properly looked after and fully unionised, but it is especially unfair to those who work in those conditions. The Government should reintroduce the fair wages resolution, which, extraordinarily, they saw fit to repeal, even though that all-party resolution, introduced in time of war, had been retained by all parties in time of peace.
I ask the Government to renounce tonight their intention to repeal the wages council regulations when it becomes possible, in the international arena, for them to do so lawfully. It is a vast worry that the last remaining bulwark against such exploitation in times of hardship should be removed by the Government in the name of creating more jobs by lowering the levels of pay. That is the suggestion in the Minister's letter. Paying lower wages will not create more jobs. Everyone's livelihood will become worse as levels of pay, standards of living and the level of resources made available to inspectorates gradually fall.
I ask the Minister to treat the matter seriously. I place the responsibility squarely upon the Government and upon those who have seen fit to remove resources when they should be increased. However, within the city of Leicester this is not a party matter. The newspaper which has raised it has never been accused of being a Labour paper. Leicester city council is an excellent Labour-controlled council, but I do not know of any member of that council or any party who has opposed this view. It has the support of all sections of the Leicester community.
Leicester has a population of only a quarter of a million people, but the fear, the worry, and the resurgence of sweatshops are national, not local, matters.
The hon. Member for Harborough saw fit to leave the Chamber immediately after he had raised his point of order. Even with that interruption, I am grateful for having had an opportunity to raise this matter. I trust that the Minister will give a clear promise to do what is in his power to improve matters.

Mr. John Gorst: I am glad to have a few moments in which to make one or two general points about the principle of low pay. One can support robust economic policy and believe that vigorous activity produces dynamic results, without necessarily endorsing harshness in employment or the exploitation of individuals.
If that is one's view—it is mine—it does not follow that a person who supports a tough approach to competition believes that it can be done at any cost in terms of human discomfort or individual distress, especially if they are weaker members of the community. Nevertheless, every team game must have an umpire to see that there is fair play, and similarly every economy needs a Government to act as a referee.
The point of general principle that I want to underline is that while we are right to seek a more flexible, efficient and adaptable labour market, and while we are right to note that higher pay probably means fewer jobs, we would be wrong to dismantle the institutions or measures that exist, or should exist, to protect the disadvantaged in our work force. I think of those groups who are usually said to be disadvantaged—women and younger people.
It is extremely helpful that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) has raised this subject, although, of course, I know nothing of the conditions in his constituency. He is right to insist that a better managed and more productive economy is no repayment for a society without a human face.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I have been asked by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) to treat the matter seriously and have been assured by him that this is not a party matter. I shall treat the matter very seriously, but I believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments would have been made with a great deal more force if he had been more careful about accuracy and had not done me the discourtesy of publishing his letter to me and my letter to him before I had even received his letter to me. It is also a great pity the he made his speech without referring to the work of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer), who first raised this matter with me and with whom I have therefore been in considerable touch. The hon. and learned Gentleman comes late to it and it would have been much better if he had treated the matter with the same seriousness that he asks from me.
I shall set out, first, the mistakes that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made. There is no commitment by the Government to abolish the wages councils. He is clearly wrong in his letter to me. I made the matter absolutely clear, and he knows it because he was present during the debate when it was made clear that the Government are sensible enough to be examining the wages councils and to be considering their effect in reality on wage levels and the jobs that are available in the industries concerned. We said that if it emerged that the wages councils reduce the number of jobs available, especially opportunities for young people, any Government ought to take the necessary steps to protect jobs. It is quite untrue to say that we are committed to the abolition of wages councils. He has written it in a letter to me, has released it to the press and has reported it twice this evening, although he knows that it is untrue and knows that there is no such commitment, as he was present in the House when I made that absolutely clear.

Mr. Janner: rose——

Mr. Gummer: No, I shall not give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have little time and I am replying to his——

Mr. Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Having made a personal attack of that type, it is unheard of for a Minister not to give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Gummer: I shall be happy to give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman when I have made my second point about his comments. He also said that there has been a reduction in resources available to the Health and Safety Executive. That is not true. The resources available to the Health and Safety Executive provided by the Government are greater now than they were when the Labour party was in power. That has been the constant arrangement which we have tried to put forward and which I have fought for and believe in.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to raise a matter of grave importance in the House, but he would be listened to with greater care if he had not thrown about allegations and sought to make this a party political issue instead of the serious issue it is, which I intend to take action upon seriously and in a way in which I hope I shall have the support at least of those who take the matter seriously rather than as a matter of mere propaganda.

Mr. Janner: Will the Minister undertake to the House that the Government will not abolish the wages council regulations?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman, in case I have to say it again, will remember exactly what I said.

Mr. Janner: Yes or no?

Mr. Gummer: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will listen this time, he will hear what I have to say. The Government have said that they are looking at the whole question of wages councils. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Gentleman must not insist upon intervening and then from a sedentary position make remarks which——

Mr. Janner: rose——

Mr. Gummer: I shall not give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He must listen to the facts, although he does not like them.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that we are committed to abolish the wages councils. That is untrue; he knew it was untrue and he heard me say that it was untrue. He cannot in any way gainsay what I have said this evening.
We have said honestly and reasonably that we shall look at the whole issue. The reason why I cannot continue with the debate which the hon. and learned Gentleman introduced is that he interrupted me and demanded that he should be able to interrupt me. Therefore, I shall reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman's interruption. We in the Conservative party are concerned to protect the wages and conditions of people sufficiently to look at legislation which has been on the statute book for a long time and which in certain areas appears — although we do not have the full advice yet—to restrict the number of jobs available and not at the same time have the effect on wages which he would wish. Any investigation of those areas in Leicester covered by the wages councils, compared with those areas which are not, does not lead to an inevitable conclusion that those covered by the wages councils are significantly better protected than those which are not.
Having covered wages councils, may I take the other point that the hon. and learned Gentleman made? He has suggested that in Leicester there is a major problem which is paralleled in other parts of Britain. I realise that from discussions that I have had with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South, who has put to me the points which seem to be important behind the admirable campaign which has been waged by the Leicester Mercury. That paper has suggested that there are many such cases and has suggested that it will be putting evidence for those cases to those concerned.
One must accept that two different organisations are clearly concerned. First, there is the Health and Safety Executive, since this is a matter concerning health and safety. One of the problems that we are concerned with is that the major problem of health and safety in the kind of firms that we are talking about is not the usual kind. It is


largely a matter of fire. That is not the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive. The hon. and learned Gentleman recognised that, I think, in his reference to the fire hazard. That is the major problem in these industries. The hon. and learned Gentleman must accept that.
As for the problems which normally come to the Health and Safety Executive apart from fire, there have been two complaints and those are being followed up vigorously. We understand from the Leicester Mercury that there are some 80 complaints. We have not yet had any of the evidence that the newspaper will give or claims that it will give us. I have the assurance of the Health and Safety Executive that we shall look at that most carefully when we have it, because it is our duty. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) made the point graphically. It is our duty to be on the side of those who are least able to defend themselves. Therefore, it is our duty to investigate this matter with the greatest care and to do what we can to make sure that the law on health and safety is enforced. That is what we shall do, and that is why the Government have increased the resources available to the Health and Safety Executive.
That is why I am sorry the hon. and learned Gentleman should not at least have given credit where credit is due. Credit must be due to a Government who give more resources than did the Government that the hon. and learned Gentleman supported, a Government who did not face Adjournment debates on this subject when they were giving less money to it. If that had been so, we would take more seriously the points that he has made.
The Health and Safety Executive is also greatly concerned that we should ensure that all those factories carrying out operations report their existence to the Health and Safety Executive, as they should. This problem exists all over the country, and it always has. Factories are set up which do not report to the Health and Safety Executive. We have been improving the relationships between the Health and Safety Executive, the fire officers and others who have knowledge of the factories, and we are seeking constantly to make sure that we have lists of them, and that they are inspected.
The real problem comes with the wages inspectorate. A large number of these factories do not come under the wages inspectorate. For reasons that I think are lost in the mists of antiquity, when the Liberal Government arranged the areas to be covered by the wages inspectorate, those in the knitwear industry were differentiated from those who make up by sewing machine or by hand, so the knitwear industry does not have the coverage of the wages inspectorate that the other clothing industries have. This means that there is not a mechanism that would enable us to investigate the low pay involved.
We have to look at the problem of low pay in a much wider sense. I do not believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong in complaining about conditions in which people appear to be working in appalling conditions

in terms of safety or of the pay that they receive. I can assure him that there is no question of the Government dissenting from the argument that those who are offered pay levels way below what would be reasonable have every reason to complain. The problem in Leicester is that a number of vacancies appear to be advertised at pay levels above those which are claimed for some of these people, and those do not seem to be being taken up. I am looking carefully at the situation with the jobcentres concerned to see whether we can identify the truth of these allegations. One of our problems is that we have a large number of allegations, but few facts on which to work.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is right in saying that this is always a difficulty when we are faced with people who may fear for their jobs and who therefore may not wish to put the allegations to us. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South and others have brought this matter to my attention, and have pointed out that one of their difficulties is acquiring facts, figures and details upon which action can be taken. We look forward to receiving from the Leicester Mercury all the details it has. I shall personally see that, so far as we have powers to act on them, we shall do so.
The Health and Safety Executive is increasing its efforts to ensure that, through the various bodies, and the various communities and groups in Leicester who have an interest in this, we shall seek to make a more efficient and more complete list of those factories which come within our responsibility. Total coverage will never be possible. That is a fact of life that Governments of both political persuasions have accepted. However, it must be possible to have the most complete list that can be managed. In so far as our lists are incomplete, we will seek to make them more complete, and we shall certainly seek to have the resources that are necessary to see that they are inspected. Above all, we will seek with wages inspectors to cover those areas which the wages councils already cover.
I listened with care to what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about fire risks. However, that is a matter not for the Health and Safety Executive or the Government but for Leicestershire county council. I understand that the blocking of the changes advocated was only the blocking of large increases in expenditure proposed by the ruling group. Now that the control of Leicestershire county council has changed, I shall take the opportunity to discuss with the new authorities what they can do to improve, if necessary, the coverage for fire in Leicester, and I shall ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for such matters brings to the attention of the authorities the hon. Gentleman's complaint and discusses with them whether some improvements can be made.
The hon. Gentleman rather disdainfully raised one last issue when he referred to my——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at ten minutes past One o'clock.